generalizing means that for any generic object we should try/catch to avoid
that error ? talking about automated code ... the "whitelist" is everyday
bigger :)
Thanks for the answer
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, April 14, 2013, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
>> I wonder if all of this is expected:
>>
>> (function(){
>> "use strict";
>> function caller() {
>> alert(caller.caller);
>> }
>> // error if invoked: caller();
>> // but showing up in properties
>> var properties = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(caller);
>> if (properties.indexOf('caller')) {
>> console.log(JSON.stringify(
>> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(caller, 'caller')
>> ));
>> // will show
>> // enumerable: false, configurable: false
>> }
>> }());
>>
>> same is for arguments ... so fn.arguments is there too
>>
>> Am I the only one thinking this is confusing ?
>>
>> I understand it's convenient for engines to simply put such descriptor
>> there but shouldn't these properties be hidden under use strict?
>>
>> Just wondering, thanks for any clarification.
>>
>
> This is what is meant by "poisoned". The properties are there, because the
> spec says they should be, but accessing them results in a thrown exception.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
