On 15 December 2012 22:52, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
So, to me, it sounds like that to continue down this path we should really
add new non-reflected properties attributes that are the real control points
for the ES semantics. Eg, we may need [[RealReadOnly]],
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 15 December 2012 22:52, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
So, to me, it sounds like that to continue down this path we should really
add new non-reflected properties attributes that are the real
On 17 December 2012 13:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I see the following preferable solutions to deal with DOM features violating
ES:
1. Lobby to fix the DOM and make it conform to ES instead of the
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 17 December 2012 13:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
I see the following preferable solutions to deal with DOM features
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.comwrote:
Now I'm really scared. Please let's not go there.
I see the following preferable solutions to deal with DOM features
violating ES:
1. Lobby to fix the DOM and make it conform to ES instead of the other
way round.
Le 17/12/2012 13:51, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 17 December 2012 13:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I see the following
On 12/17/12 4:51 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Independent of these specific issues, I think that the whole Window vs
WindowProxy hack is terrible. If anyone thinks there is any hope of
getting rid of this hack, I encourage you to try.
For what it's worth, it's specified that way not least because
Hi Allen,
I don't think we're circling. I think we're doing a spiral (which may
give the impression that we're circling while we're moving forward).
More answers inline.
Le 15/12/2012 22:52, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
(...)
In ES5, we added reflection operations that allow ES code to
Hi,
On public-script-coord, Boris Zbarsky showed an example [1] where a
global variable is var-defined and then observed to be absent from the
global object it was attached to (because the WindowProxy has changed of
underlying window object).
The careful ECMAScript 5.1 reader knows that
On 12/15/12 12:21 PM, David Bruant wrote:
On public-script-coord, Boris Zbarsky showed an example [1] where a
global variable is var-defined and then observed to be absent from the
global object it was attached to (because the WindowProxy has changed of
underlying window object).
No, nothing
The need to do what was proposed is the same though. Configurability can be
arm twisted into submission for things like document and location via
accessors, and the WindowProxy can refuse to accept non-configurable
properties defined using Object.defineProperty, but that leaves
non-configurable
Le 15/12/2012 18:23, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
On 12/15/12 12:21 PM, David Bruant wrote:
On public-script-coord, Boris Zbarsky showed an example [1] where a
global variable is var-defined and then observed to be absent from the
global object it was attached to (because the WindowProxy has changed
On 12/15/12 12:34 PM, David Bruant wrote:
No, nothing of the sort. The example shows it _present_ on the global
(the third alert in my example) but missing from the WindowProxy
(fourth alert).
I'm comparing the second and fourth alert (that's not what the example
was created to show, but
Le 15/12/2012 18:37, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
On 12/15/12 12:34 PM, David Bruant wrote:
No, nothing of the sort. The example shows it _present_ on the global
(the third alert in my example) but missing from the WindowProxy
(fourth alert).
I'm comparing the second and fourth alert (that's not
On 12/15/12 12:48 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Sure, but those aren't properties on the _global_. They're properties
on a different object.
Script authors can't observe the fact that it's a different object.
Yes, they can. The third and fourth alerts in my testcase constitute
just such an
On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:21 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
On public-script-coord, Boris Zbarsky showed an example [1] where a global
variable is var-defined and then observed to be absent from the global object
it was attached to (because the WindowProxy has changed of underlying window
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:21 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
On public-script-coord, Boris Zbarsky showed an example [1] where a global
variable is var-defined and then observed to be absent from the global object
it was attached to (because the WindowProxy has changed of
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org]
On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 14:26
Reflecting var and function bindings on window (or |this| or |self| or other
aliases) as configurable properties, but refusing to allow
Domenic Denicola wrote:
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On
Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 14:26
Reflecting var and function bindings on window (or |this| or |self| or other
aliases) as configurable properties, but
Le 15/12/2012 19:38, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:21 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
On public-script-coord, Boris Zbarsky showed an example [1] where a global
variable is var-defined and then observed to be absent from the global object
it was attached to (because the
On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Domenic Denicola wrote:
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org
[mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 14:26
Reflecting var and function bindings on window (or |this| or |self|
21 matches
Mail list logo
