[Reposted at David's request.]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Function identity of non-configurable accessors
To: David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:08 AM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [off-list]
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I have an email with the conclusions on the whole WindowProxy thing and
> ramifications to be cross-posted to es-discuss and public-script-coord.
> There are one remaining pending issues about function identity of
> non-configurable accessors. There are 2 main ideas:
> * Allow non-configurable accessors to change the getter/setter functions
>
That is unacceptable. That breaks the intended invariants. That this
invariant isn't specified is an oversight.
> * Don't allow to change the functions and for WindowProxy, define
> functions to have a special deeply frozen Function.prototype and
> Object.prototype ("null realm" solution championed by Brendan).
>
That could work, but because of its complexity, I'm leaning back towards
the "configurable data property that refuses to be configured" approach. Is
there a problem with that? It self-hosts fine.
>
> Since you're concerned about ES invariants, could you share your opinion
> on the topic as well as give your opinion on the different proposed
> solutions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
