Hi,
ES5 invariants are silent when it comes to function identity of
non-configurable accessors. That is, for a given object o,
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(o, 'a').get ===
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(o, 'a').get
(two seperate calls) is not guaranteed.
The built-in
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:27 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
The way things are going, WindowProxy [Unforgeable] properties will be
non-configurable getters. If, upon underlying window change, the WindowProxy
is expected to keep the exact same getter function, then, it may result in
Le 15/12/2012 15:49, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt a écrit :
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:27 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
The way things are going, WindowProxy [Unforgeable] properties will be
non-configurable getters. If, upon underlying window change, the WindowProxy
is expected to keep the
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
David Bruant wrote:
If I create a non-configurable property with a getter that I define
(such
as `() = 3`), I know that accessing the property will always produce
a known value.Relaxing this restriction means that proxies could
produce whatever they wanted in this situation.
Indeed. Note
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
Le 15/12/2012 19:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
If I create a non-configurable property with a getter that I define
(such
as `() = 3`), I know that accessing the property will always produce
a known value.Relaxing this restriction means that proxies could
produce whatever
David Bruant wrote:
Le 15/12/2012 19:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
If I create a non-configurable property with a getter that I define
(such
as `() = 3`), I know that accessing the property will always produce
a known value.Relaxing this restriction means that proxies
Is there any leak if you set the accessor functions to have a null
[[Prototype]] and to have no non-primitive properties?
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Le 15/12/2012 19:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
If I
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|
Le 15/12/2012 22:20, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
Le 15/12/2012 19:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Frozen accessors would be best if we can get away with the
incompatibility.
I've given more thought. Frozen accessors can't be a solution. Only
deeply frozen would be.
Oh sure -- that
Le 15/12/2012 22:26, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
Is there any leak if you set the accessor functions to have a null
[[Prototype]] and to have no non-primitive properties?
There isn't. That would be the super-minimal null realm solution.
David
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Brendan Eich
Le 15/12/2012 16:14, David Bruant a écrit :
Le 15/12/2012 15:49, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt a écrit :
If I create a non-configurable property with a getter that I define
(such
as `() = 3`), I know that accessing the property will always produce
a known value.Relaxing this restriction means that
23 matches
Mail list logo
