On Apr 19, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > Awesome! Please let's do this! > > I don't understand the comment about Object.keys, etc. If they continue to be > specified in terms of [[OwnPropertyKeys]], then they get cleaned up as well, > which seems good.
Object.keys currently says it produces the same ordering as for-in , but for-in ordering is implementation defined. We've never convinced ourselves that implementations would willing change to confirm to a required for-in ordering. > > Is there a reason why we might want to continue to underspecify Object.keys, > etc? The same reasons why it was under specified in the first place. Implementation conformance and at this point concerns about breaking changes. > > If there is, how would you continue to underspecify Object.keys etc, while > still cleaning up [[OwnPropertyKeys]]? By saying: After retrieving the keys using [[OwnPropertyKeys]] an implementation must reordering to conform to the for-in enumeration order. > > Do we also have an opportunity to (finally!) pin down for/in ordering as part > of this? I don't think so, and I think that is too big of an issue to consider at this time. But I don't see any reason that new functions should use a well specified ordering. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
