How are they related? Wouldn't that affect Object.defineProperty only if someone passes it an object inheriting from array, for which I can't think any valid reason for.
Andri On May 14, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: > I like we keep adding `get` and `set` here and there but I hope we are not > forgetting to fix descriptors inheritance problem where any `get` or `set` > can compromise `Object.defineProperty` operations (just a gently reminder > that `get` and `set` if inherited can cause many troubles in ES5 like > operations) > > Best Regards > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Till Schneidereit > <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> wrote: > Previous discussion on this topic: > http://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-last > > We should look at how existing utility libraries handle this behavior and > base any proposals on that IMHO. Underscore and Lo-Dash have > [`_.first`](http://lodash.com/docs#first) and > [`_.last`](http://lodash.com/docs#last), which both take an optional > `callback` parameter, in which case all the first/last `n` elements for which > `callback` returns a truthy value are returned. This seems like a sensible > thing to add to the proposal. > > While I think having .last would be nice, I don't think it's worth the > considerable backwards-compatibility issues. We had to temporarily back out > Array#values from SpiderMonkey until we implement @@unscopable semantics[1], > because we ran into serious real-world breakage. I'm pretty sure that "last" > would break a lot more code, as it's even easier to think up scenarios where > that'd be used as a property name on an array used in application logic. > > At the very least, I think having Array#last be a getter is entirely > untenable: a method would at least just be overwritten in most cases, whereas > a read-only accessor would just (silently, in non-strict code) fail. A > read-write accessor would probably be even worse: it'd silently (in all code) > do something entirely different than it did before. > > I do, however, like Axel's proposal[2] of adding .get() and .set() to > Array.prototype, and think that that'd be way less of a compatibility issue. > > > [1]: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-July/thread.html#32185 > [2]: http://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-last#content-5 > > I forgot about this, thanks for posting. I like get() much better as it can > be a "first" or a "last" (or any in between) with less surface impact. > > Rick > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
