On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the oddity I note is a consequence of the too loose paragraph in > section 2: > "A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide > additional types, values, objects, properties, and functions beyond those > described in this specification. In particular, a conforming implementation > of ECMAScript is permitted to provide properties not described in this > specification, and values for those properties, for objects that are > described in this specification." > > Instead of having an "there is no 'caller' nor 'arguments' property at > all" rule, maybe it would be a good idea to refine this paragraph to say > what's permitted and what is not. > For instance, mention that for function objects, there cannot be a > property (regardless of its name!) providing access to the caller function > during runtime, etc. > With this kind of refinement (potentially reminded as a note in the > relevant subsections), it may be easier to share and document the intent of > what is acceptable to provide as authority and more importantly what is not. > How about: there must be no *nonstandard non-configurable properties* of standard objects. This directly implies “SES can do its job of deleting everything not whitelisted”, and does not rely on the spec blacklisting undesirable behaviors.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
