2012/12/19 David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> > Le 18/12/2012 20:09, Mark S. Miller a écrit : > >> I see no reason why this needs to be a reflected property. As to >> whether it is an exotic internal property or just prose, that is a >> specification expository issue for which I defer to Allen. But the >> spec only needs such extra state for the exotic global object. There's >> nothing general about it. >> > I fully agree on the fact that if there was a "deletable" attribute it > would be "local" to the global object and wouldn't need to be an attribute > reflected on all objects. > In ES5, we've been thinking of property attributes as absolute thing that > apply to every single objects. Maybe it's time to give each sort of object > a little bit of freedom to explain how their properties work, to allow the > reflection methods to describe their internal contract more accurately than > they currently can with configurable/writable/**enumerable/get/set > In this case, maybe there is value in having WindowProxy objects telling > us whether or not a property is deletable or not (because the configurable > boolean which is used for that in other objects doesn't have the same > semantics here). > > Maybe numerical attributes of NodeList could provide a "live" or > "syncWithDOMTree" attribute clearly showing that they are not your regular > numerical properties. > > I'm putting maybe-s because I don't know if there is value in doing that, > but the point I am trying to make is that this can be the way out to enable > all objects to respect invariants while allowing different objects to > express their internal contract.
Yes. This is exactly what I meant with using custom attributes to document exotic behavior.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
