On Apr 21, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
> FWIW, you can reproduce this test case without reference to the new `super`
> syntax:
>
> ```
> var parent = {};
> var x = Object.create(parent, {
> prop: { value: 1, configurable: true, writable: false }
> });
>
> Reflect.set(parent, "prop", 2, x); // expected false, but under current
> semantics will return true
> ```
>
> However, I'm not sure the new step 5.e.i. is correct: why abort the [[Set]]
> when the existing descriptor is an accessor? If it has a setter, it seems to
> me the setter should be run. Testcase:
>
> ```
> var parent = {};
> var v = 1;
> var x = Object.create(parent, {
> prop: { get: function() { return v; }, set: function(n) { v = n; },
> configurable: true }
> });
>
> Reflect.set(parent, "prop", 2, x); // under Allen's proposed changes, this
> will return false while I think it should just call the setter?
Yes, I considered that possibility in deciding upon the proposed change. The
reason I error out if the Receiver property is an accessor is because I think
the most likely way this scenario will occur is when that that access includes
a `super.prop` assignment. That would result in an infinite [[Set]] recursion.
For example:
```
var y = {
__proto__: x,
set prop(v) {
// ...
super.prop = v;
}
};
y.prop = 42;
```
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
