> Just checking: Are we talking about adding it to each instance as a non-configurable non-writable data property?
Mark: No, not to each instance, but to Array.prototype, Function.prototype, etc. If someone wants to override it on a specific instance that's fine, and I don't think it's important to protect against that. > I would not be happy with making the built-ins nonconfigurable. Just like Function.prototype.length, it should be unlocked. Domenic: Changing Function#length makes sense to me - the Function#bind shim does nasty things to ensure "length" is set properly, for example, and it would be much easier if the length was editable. Do you have a use case in mind where you'd want to change a language builtins' @@toStringTag value? We can always unlock it later, but it seems like we can't lock it down once it's unlocked, so without any valid use cases, it seems like a risky move to unlock it now. On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > >> Is there anyone who wouldn't be happy with "all >>> builtins' @@toStringTag is not configurable" and "drop the ~ prefixing >>> completely"? >>> >> >> Just checking: Are we talking about adding it to each instance as >> unconfigurable? >> > > Sorry, incomplete question. Meant: > > Just checking: Are we talking about adding it to each instance as a > non-configurable non-writable data property? > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
