On Sep 29, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > On 28/09/11 00:06, Waldemar Horwat wrote: >> Should we standardize __proto__ in Annex B? >> MarkM + a few others: Yes >> Waldemar, Doug: No > > Unless we have a definite plan that no ES.Next impl will support __proto__, > then by all means don't standardize it.
It is a standard (de-facto), we were just talking about making a non-mandatory normative spec for it. That does carry some weight but not much more than the de-facto standard, IMHO. > However, seeming the conclusion before was that not all use-cases of > __proto__ are handled currently, once they are addressed in ES.Next, there > will still be some transitional phase. I'd rather specify it in ES.Next, even > if we do then agree to drop it in ES.(Next+1). > > That said about any transitional phase, if it turns out we can make it > [[Writable: false]] in ES.Next, then all the better (thereby only providing a > transitional phase for those who can already use Object.getPrototypeOf). Making the spec break the existing use-cases won't make browsers break those case. We don't get free-lunch rewrites from busy/absent developers who used writable __proto__ some time in the past for content that is still in service. The spec can only do so much. It would be better to remove __proto__ once the horses have found the new, healthy vegetables that replace it, and only then (based on surveys, web scans a la the sawzall study Hixie did [1], etc.). /be [1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/scripting.html _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
