[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