On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > In that case, I find this unacceptable, as it breaks the branding invariant that some legacy ES5 code depends on. > > > 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 >> > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
