"be careful what you wish" ... if it's about making things that hard on server side JS too.
V8 apparently won't accept even a flag for this, regardless zero side effects on web whatever decision is made. https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2645 This is bad, IMHO! On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > discussion oriented to SES again, I hope this won't be spec'd blindly > after some SES requirement that might be very different from, let's say, > node.js requirements, where the concept of security is not about evaluating > runtime unknonw code ... right? :-) > > I keep being amazed by how many problems is causing inheritance in specs. > > Meanwhile, in a parallel ES3 like Universe: > > delete Object.prototype.__proto__; > > function AnotherObject(){} > AnotherObject.prototype = AnotherProto = frames[0].Object.prototype; > > var o = new AnotherObject; > o.__proto__ = whatever; > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <al...@wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > >> >> On Apr 23, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Andreas Rossberg wrote: >> >> On 23 April 2013 17:10, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote: >> >> [*] I say "probably" to hedge my bets. The hard constraint we absolutely >> >> require is already guaranteed by ES5: That the [[Prototype]] of a >> >> non-extensible object cannot be mutated. >> >> >> I'm confused now. How does ES5 guarantee that? >> >> >> See http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-8.6.2 third >> paragraph beyond table 8 >> >> Allen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
