On Sep 29, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> ...
>
> Subjectively, the examples here are exactly how I would expect (hope?) this
> to behave, as the existing behaviour:
>
> > Array.prototype.push(1)
> 1
> > Array.prototype
> [ 1 ]
>
>
> ...Has always been seemed "strange" ;)
>
I believe this is the root item we are discussing. The legacy precedent says
that Map.prototype.set("screwed", "you") should work and create an accessible
map entry.
I specified Map.prototype to throw.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your change requires implementations to provide a different built-in class
> (constructor/prototype) initialization path. That's not desirable _per se_.
> Neither IMHO is the user-facing semantic split among "old" and "new"
> constructors.
>
> There are two separate issues here:
>
> 1. Should Map.prototype be an instance (firstborn for its realm) of class Map?
>
> 2. Should Map.prototype be a key/value store that can be used or abused as
> any other Map could be?
>
> We should not mix these up. SpiderMonkey (and possibly V8, I haven't tested)
> says "yes" to 1 and "no" to 2.
>
> 1: yes
> 2: no
>
As I covered in my reply to Brendan, I don't think these are sufficiently
defined to really answer. But if you definition of "an instance" is that
Object.prototype.toString.call(Map.prototype) returns "Map" then the latest
spec. draft does 1: yes, 2: no
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
