On 2013/06/06 22:02:54, MarkM wrote:
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.
Each of these description records should have links to issues in some
issue tracker. Have the first of these be to a google-caja tracking
issue. These issues would be a good place to put the text explaining the
hazard of proceeding with the issue unrepaired, and, for those that the
default Caja configuration permits, why it does so. These would then be
easy to navigate to from explicit.html.
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.
