Russell Leggett wrote:
Can we make it writable:false, configurable:true? Of course, that
would only be a minor deterrent from changing it around, but maybe
just enough?
This has zero integrity, so is IMHO worse than worthless -- it's
misleading. Not that anyone will count on it, but stopping assignments
while allowing reconfiguration or deletion and redefinition does not
smell right.
To answer Dave's question, I meant that classes without any extra
Object.defineProperty calls can be used to implement built-ins. Not a
huge win but seemingly better than requiring Object.defineProperty for
that case -- assuming class declarations create a constructor property
on the class prototype.
If we want class C {} to create no C.prototype.constructor back-link to
C, then we're not sugaring the prototypal pattern. That seems like too
much innovation instead of desugaring, but you could model it via delete
C.prototype.constructor after class C{} assuming constructor is
configurable.
Of course one could argue based on desugaring to user-defined (not
built-in) functions that C.prototype.constructor should be configurable
and writable:
js> function f(){}
js> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(f, 'prototype')
({configurable:false, enumerable:false, value:{}, writable:true})
js> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(f.prototype, 'constructor')
({configurable:true, enumerable:false, value:function f() {},
writable:true})
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
