Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Apr 21, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
What I mean is that:
let obj = {__proto__: null}
will always create an object whose [[Prototype]]
Didn't you mean "an object whose property named '__proto__'" here?
is null. Regardless of whether or not anybody has done:
delete Object.prototype.__proto__.
Yes, that's what I just wrote!
What part was unclear?
Sorry, I misread your "[[Prototype]] is null" as "property named '__proto__' is
null".
But you cannot break ES5. Why are you changing things to deviate from it, never
mind from ES6 consensus?
We must be talking across each other...web reality is that
var obj = {__proto__: someObj};
creates a new object whose [[Prototype]] is the value of someObj (assuming it
is valid for that use). Right?
Argh, you're right. I'm wrong, the de-facto standard wants [[Put]] not
[[DefineOwnProperty]] and that's what ES5 specified.
I plead jetlag and throw myself on the mercy of the court!
Doesn't that mean that ES5 implementations that support that semantics already deviate
from the ES5 spec which says that an own property named "__proto__" should be
created via [[DefineOwnProperty]]?
That follows.
However, let's get back to (a) coffee :-); (b) ES6 and the ability to
delete Object.prototype.__proto__.
You don't want that to affect object literals evaluated in the same
realm after such a deletion. Why not?
SpiderMonkey at least goes out of its way to do [[Set]] (let's call it)
not [[DefineOwnProperty]] for 'o = {__proto__: 42}', so why wouldn't
[[Set]] create a fresh property, seeing nothing on Object.prototype
named '__proto__' with a setter to run?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
