On 12/31/12 2:24 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Polyfillability is an interesting criteria. Is Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor polyfillability important? Would a good [[Get]]+[[Set]] polyfill be enough? By that I mean that as long as the [[Get]]+[[Set]] behavior is good, maybe polyfilling a property by an accessor is good enough?
Getting the right [[Get]] and [[Set]] behavior is enough, but how do you propose to implement a polyfill that calls the "original" getter or setter in some cases if those getters and setters aren't ever exposed anywhere?
I tend to consider data or accessor property as an implementation detail.
Not sure what you mean. How is it any more or less an implementation detail than property vs method, say?
It's important to specify it in WebIDL for interoperability, but authors should be worried of making the [[Get]]/[[Set]] protocol work
Yes, agreed.
If necessary, WebIDL is free to add custom property descriptor attribute.
Uh... No. I don't think it is. Nothing else in the language or othe standards would know anything about this attribute; various other specifications that work in terms of property descriptors would suddenly start doing weird stuff, no?
And it would create an own property of type long (so subject to all relevant WebIDL logic).
That requires putting the WebIDL logic in the ECMAScript implementation, no? Which is not how it works in at least SpiderMonkey and V8 (which are meant as standalone ECMAScript implementations).
-Boris _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
