John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eich<[email protected]> wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
in adding a Reflect.setPrototype at this point, is there?
There is, just as there's a cost to Object.setPrototypeOf (the obvious place
to put it to match Object.getPrototypeOf from ES5). Mark pointed out that
he'd have to delete that static method too, and from every frame that might
run SES code. But when mashing up SES and non-SES code, it would be better
not to break the non-SES code by such deletion.
Having only the SES environment's Object.prototype.__proto__ to delete is
better.
How is this this line of reasoning -- which I read as 'support for
SES-environments and non-SES-environments' -- not violating 1JS?
How about you say how it violates 1JS instead of asking me to prove a
negative?
1JS is about no explicit version
number/MIME-type-parameter/pragma/other-designator opt-in. Nothing to do
with goal #5 at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:harmony#goals, which is
about a different language, SES, that must map efficiently to ES6 and up
(and almost does to ES5).
Subset and other transpiled language != version opt-in mandated to use
ES6 in the main language.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
