Hi Allen, that's very clever. But I don't think it is needed. David is right about running first. I also don't have a proof, but practically I'm sure that for JS as it is and will continue to be under ES-next, unless some trusted code runs in a context (frame) to initialize itself before any untrusted code runs in that context, all is lost anyway.
So if there's not really anything to be gained by this more complex normative-optional behavior, I'd rather avoid the extra complexity. On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:38 AM, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > > > There is one side-effect to defining __proto__ using a getter/setter > > property. You can extract the setter and store it for later, allowing > > you to change the prototype of objects after someone else deleted the > > __proto__ property. > > > Not if the built-in setter function for __proto__ is defined similarly to: > > Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype,'__proto__', > {set: function __proto__(value) { > if (Object.getPropertyDescriptor(this,'__proto__').set !== > __proto__) throw new TypeError('invalid use of __proto__'); > ... //do the work of validating and setting [[Prototype]] of > this > }}); > > (and assuming that Object.getPropertyDescriptor is defined to access > inherited properties) > > > Allen > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
