On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien
wrote:
> This is not as convenient as a keyword in WebIDL but I think it's good enough.
You might want to chime in on
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29004
which is asking for something similar (though more scoped).
Note thou
Closing the loop here:
With the help from :bholley the Cu.cloneInto() method now comes with
an option to deepFreeze the cloned object. Those who interested can
check out the bugs.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1184439
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1186213
This is no
On 7/13/15 2:40 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
In that case, the right question to ask would be (A) should
DOMApplication#manifest be a recursive frozen JS structure
Is it a plain vanilla object with nothing hanging off it that has
getter/setters? If so, that would not be unreasonable.
and
On 2015-07-13 2:40 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/9/15 4:48 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
In this case, I modified the manifest object passed from mozApp API,
and the object was subsequently removed by the platform, so did my
modificat
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 7/9/15 4:48 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
>>
>> In this case, I modified the manifest object passed from mozApp API,
>> and the object was subsequently removed by the platform, so did my
>> modifications. Fabrice said I should not be modif
On 7/9/15 4:48 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
In this case, I modified the manifest object passed from mozApp API,
and the object was subsequently removed by the platform, so did my
modifications. Fabrice said I should not be modified the object since
it's marked as read only in WebIDL.
"readonl
6 matches
Mail list logo
