https://codereview.chromium.org/47703003/diff/130001/test/mjsunit/harmony/object-observe.js
File test/mjsunit/harmony/object-observe.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/47703003/diff/130001/test/mjsunit/harmony/object-observe.js#newcode303
test/mjsunit/harmony/object-observe.js:303: // Object.preventExtensions
On 2013/10/31 08:03:20, rossberg wrote:
On 2013/10/30 23:00:30, rafaelw wrote:
> On 2013/10/30 19:11:45, rossberg wrote:
> > Cases you could add:
> >
> > - invoking preventExtensions/seal/freeze on an object that already
has
> > preventExtensions (should not create a preventExtensions change
record)
>
> Good catch. Note that we now exit early from
JSObject::PreventExtensions if
the
> map is already marked non-extensible.
Can you add a similar test for seal and freeze?
> > - invoking seal/freeze on an object where not all properties can
be
> > sealed/frozen (should still generate a preventExtensions change
record,
IIRC)
>
> I can't think of how to generate this case. How can this arise?
I'm sorry, you are right, it can't -- I keep forgetting that
JavaScript has this
crank semantics where you can still change a data property from
writable to
non-writable, even if it's allegedly non-configurable. 8/
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/47703003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
