Andrea may be asking for less than the standard someday removing
__proto__, if I read him right. He's asking not to keep it
"indestructible", i.e., to make
delete Object.prototype.__proto__
remove all the magic, including for 'o = {__proto__: p}'.
But that seems to require using [[Put]] rather than [[SetInheritance]],
and you said that's a security problem. Could you show how? I asked in
my immediately preceding message how creating custom proto-chains for
guaranteed fresh objects via literals makes trouble for SES.
/be
Mark Miller wrote:
Hi Andrea, Allen's immediately previous sentence was
"The point is that I don't think there is any long standing behavior
in this regard relating to object literals and deleting
Object.prototype.__proto__ that the web is dependent upon."
This sets the context for understanding Allen's next sentence. We are
constrained by cross-browser legacy. So long as IE was not planning to
implement __proto__, we avoided standardizing it. In the current
situation, TC39 is powerless to prevent __proto__ becoming a
cross-browser standard. Our only choices are
1) We design and codify a spec that all these browsers can agree on,
that does not break existing cross-browser (IE aside) web content, and
that is as clean as possible *within* those constraints.
2) We do not do so, in which case each browser gropes separately to be
compatible enough with what the other browsers seem to be doing.
And example of the consequences of #2 is the wildly different and
often bizarre semantics of block nested functions. This was the
consequence of omitting these from "official" JavaScript in a
social/political context where all browsers felt compelled to
implement them anyway. They groped towards compatibility without
coordination and arrived at painfully incoherent
results. (Fortunately, we were able to quarantine this bizarreness to
sloppy mode.)
As a standards committee, we need to be realistic about when we can
exercise normative power and when we can't. I'll even agree that, when
we're uncertain, we should err on the side of cleaning things up.
Until IE changed expectation, we were doing exactly that by avoiding
__proto__. Today, we no longer have that happy uncertainty.
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
We are free to specify a semantics that will make sense, now
and for the long term.
then, for the long term, if all I understood about this thing is
that stinks for everybody, you should really consider to give
developers the possibility to get rid of this property completely,
if desired, instead of making it indestructible, IMHO
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
