On 2013/06/06 21:41:14, kpreid2 wrote:
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.
I think distinguishing these in prose is adequate for now. If this turns
out to be a maintenance hazard we can revisit.
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.
