On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Domenic Denicola wrote: > >> If the belief is truly that SameValueZero is more useful than SameValue, >> perhaps we should consider relaxing that restriction, and allowing people >> to flip the sign of non-writable zero-valued properties? >> > > You are reasoning from general to particular, but without any reason to > focus on the particular of redefining a non-writable property from -0 to +0 > or vice versa. There is no use-case "there" there! I bet Mark would find > that a subtle security problem. Yes, it opens an overt communications channel through allegedly frozen state. > > > Indeed, perhaps it would be worth trying to move some of the strict >> equality comparisons over to SameValueZero, if that doesn't break too many >> things. >> > > Who knows? 1JS and browser game theory combine to mean no one will risk > trying, only to lose compatibility around the edges. > > > I know moving to SameValue has been discussed and rejected in the past, >> but that was before SameValueZero was baked into the spec. >> > > No one is discussing changing === and !==, AFAIK. Not every, in TC39. > > > (I personally dislike the existence of SameValueZero, and would rather >> stick with SameValue. But I have no reasonable arguments from practicality, >> only theoretical purity, and so I don't anticipate convincing anyone.) >> > > We should look at this again. The newest thing is the one to cast a colder > eye at. > > /be > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
