discussion oriented to SES again, I hope this won't be spec'd blindly after
some SES requirement that might be very different from, let's say, node.js
requirements, where the concept of security is not about evaluating runtime
unknonw code ... right? :-)
I keep being amazed by how many problems is causing inheritance in specs.
Meanwhile, in a parallel ES3 like Universe:
delete Object.prototype.__proto__;
function AnotherObject(){}
AnotherObject.prototype = AnotherProto = frames[0].Object.prototype;
var o = new AnotherObject;
o.__proto__ = whatever;
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
> On 23 April 2013 17:10, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote:
>
> [*] I say "probably" to hedge my bets. The hard constraint we absolutely
>
> require is already guaranteed by ES5: That the [[Prototype]] of a
>
> non-extensible object cannot be mutated.
>
>
> I'm confused now. How does ES5 guarantee that?
>
>
> See http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-8.6.2 third paragraph
> beyond table 8
>
> Allen
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
