Really, the only thing that matters is in fact *observable* behavior, so I'd concur. I just get the feeling several people in this thread don't quite understand that part of the spec, or in a few cases, the spec itself and its invariants.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 04:17 Raul-Sebastian Mihăilă <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-object-internal-methods-and-internal-slots > > The actual semantics of objects, in ECMAScript, are specified via > algorithms called internal methods. Each object in an ECMAScript engine is > associated with a set of internal methods that defines its runtime > behaviour. These internal methods are not part of the ECMAScript language. > They are defined by this specification purely for expository purposes. > However, each object within an implementation of ECMAScript must behave as > specified by the internal methods associated with it. The exact manner in > which this is accomplished is determined by the implementation. > > So, the sentence 'having an internal slot for the value of .stack would be > a spec violation' doesn't make sense to me because the slots are a > specification concept. I guess an implementation can represent this concept > one way or another internally, but it doesn't matter as long as the > implementation behaves as specified. > _______________________________________________ > 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
