On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 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. > Speaking from the perspective of a ES language designer WTF is a "script setting object stack" and why have I never heard about it?
Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
