Again, you're inventing something new. Always risky, ignoring the
throw-up-in-mouth effect :-|.
Now the burden is on someone (who?) to find code on the web that uses
the quoted form expecting the same results as the unquoted form, which
is what all implementations I know of indeed provide.
Who will do that search? Finding such code would disprove the hypothesis
of course, but usually we end up with absence of evidence, which is not
evidence of absence.
/be
Mark S. Miller wrote:
Warning: The following is a sickening idea. I would really hate to see
us do it. But I feel obliged to post it as it may in fact be the right
thing to do.
Given: Web reality drives us towards recognizing {...., __proto__:
...., ....} as special syntax for initializing [[Prototype]].
Given: JSON demands that the "__proto__" in JSON.parse('{....,
"__proto__": ...., ....}') not be treated as a special case, and
causes just the normal [[DefineOwnProperty]].
Given: Web reality does not make demands on the meaning of {....,
"__proto__": ...., ....}
Given: The ES5 JSON spec demands that JSON.parse('{...., __proto__:
...., ....}') be rejected as an error.
This suggests that, in JS as well, the "__proto__" in {....,
"__proto__": ...., ....} not be treated as a special case. Quoting it
turns off the special treatment.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
