On 2013/06/06 21:33:59, felix8a wrote:
the code looks fine, but I'm wary that repairES5 has now lost the
distinction
between "never ever ignore this UNSAFE_SPEC_VIOLATION" and "it's
sometimes
ok to ignore this UNSAFE_SPEC_VIOLATION".
for example, after this change, it's not particularly obvious that
PUSH_IGNORES_SEALED is ok but PUSH_IGNORES_FROZEN is not.
I'm not sure that line is all that sharp, but I agree that it might be
good to write it down — preferably, enforced in code. Perhaps each
kludge record should have a flag which specifies whether it may be
ignored.
Waiting for MarkM's comments on the design.
https://codereview.appspot.com/9979047/
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Caja Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
