Gavin Barraclough wrote:
On Feb 10, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
"over-specifying", right? I am in favor of specifying __proto__
minimally in Annex B.
But, one thing I would like enshrined in the spec is that
`"__proto__" in Object.create(null) === false`.
For sure!
The idea of a minimal specification sounds really encouraging. It
seems there are a few really key points that everyone appears to be in
complete agreement on – that the __proto__ property should be a member
of the Object Prototype, that this should be the only mechanism
available to change an object's prototype, and that it should be
configurable.
Yes.
BTW in taking our lumps (and dishing them out at fellow members) for CSS
WG failure to codify de-facto style property standards, I've mentioned
Ecma turning a blind eye toward __proto__. Great to finally get a
normative/optional spec for it (whatever one thinks of the thing
itself). __proto__ is used by Zepto.js and other mobile frameworks.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I know of no implementations that reflect __proto__ as an accessor,
WebKit is using an accessor in nightly builds.
Heh, I knew that was coming. I'll amend to say "of long standing" after
"implementations" :-P.
I still have a gut feeling that someone is going to take advantage of
the setter for bad purposes that will be harder to block than would be
the case if __proto__ reflected as a data property. But I can't prove this.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
