On 2/3/14 1:10 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
I'm saying that the algorithm in the [[Call]] of those objects (or
rather of the functions being bound in this case) explicitly references
a part of the environment called the "script settings object stack" and
expects whoever plans to invoke that [[Call]] to maintain it as needed.
I'm also saying that promises as currently specified in
https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping do not maintain that
stack. In particular, they can invoke the [[Call]] above with the stack
empty, and the behavior of _that_ is not defined as far as I can tell.
But even more importantly, I'm saying that all of this stuff with the
script settings object stack is something that most specification
authors shouldn't have to think about, and that we should adopt
specification formalisms that do not force them to think about it.
-Boris
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
