Thanks a lot for comments, Mads.
http://codereview.chromium.org/434035/diff/1/2 File src/runtime.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/434035/diff/1/2#newcode800 src/runtime.cc:800: // If we found readonly property below the global object On 2009/11/24 15:06:00, Mads Ager wrote: > Developers do not always agree on above/below. Can we use the formulation: If we > found readonly property on a hidden prototype...? Sure. Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/434035/diff/1/2#newcode822 src/runtime.cc:822: return ThrowRedeclarationError("const", name); On 2009/11/24 15:06:00, Mads Ager wrote: > This seems inconsistent with the case above. Should we shadow if there is an > interceptor readonly property on a hidden prototype? That is what we do for a > normal readonly property on a hidden prototype. Thank you very much---very well spotted. http://codereview.chromium.org/434035/diff/1/2#newcode849 src/runtime.cc:849: // ASSERT(!lookup.IsProperty()); On 2009/11/24 15:06:00, Mads Ager wrote: > Code in comment. Sorry, removed. http://codereview.chromium.org/434035 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
