On 10/26/2012 03:23 PM, Kevin Reid wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
Wouldn't that just preclude us from ever adding new standard non-configurable
properties to standard objects in the future?
Waldemar
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
