On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > > > if we'd like to have Array.empty, Function.empty, String.empty and > friends, what's wrong with having these as we always had already: as > prototypes? > > Just to keep things focused. *.empty is not something that is on the table > for ES6. It would have to go into the ES7 track. > > Today's issue, is > > 1) do we need to revert Array.prototype to being an Array exotic object > (I think we do) > > 2) do we need to revert RegExp.prototype to being a RegExp instance.(with > initialize RegExp internal slots) > (maybe not, and alternatively I have very minor tweaks to the exec and > test methods that will maintain the most likely such legacy > RegExp.prototype uses without needing those internal slots) RegExp.prototype.compile https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-regexp.prototype.compile is a visible side effect that survives Object.freeze. It is only not a global communications channel because there is no longer a primordial RegExp instance. So we cannot consider making RegExp.prototype a RegExp unless Object.freeze must disable RegExp.prototype.compile on RegExp instances. -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
