I'm guessing this is one of the things you needed to file a bug for? Considering the last draft was published before the consensus (throw if not "new"), I think this just need to be updated :)
Rick On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > Per last meeting I understood that constructors without new should > probably not work to make subclassing easier (my understanding of that > is still somewhat limited, I'll get there). I filed > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22808 on IDL to see if > this was possible for the platform side of things. > > I now see that ArrayBuffer() is defined as doing the equivalent thing > to new ArrayBuffer() in the ES6 draft, despite e.g. Chrome currently > throwing for the former. (This is equivalent to today's story for e.g. > XMLHttpRequest.) > > What exactly is the plan here? > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
