On 1.6.09 13:24, Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Jeff Walden<
jwalden+es@...> wrote:
>> I don't see the point in making fields of property descriptors omittable.
>
> At some point we'll need to deal with that, if future standards or
> non-standard extensions from implementors add new fields and we wish
> for existing scripts to continue to work.
>
> That said, I think it will be extremely confusing to developers if
> these ostensibly-boolean fields are really tri-state (true, false,
> unspecified), so it seems like they should default to one of the true
> or false behaviours?
Note the footnote: I was referring to the spec type, not to an object describing a property descriptor provided by JS code. That omitted properties on such objects (even extension properties) be treated as if they were set to their default values was precisely what I was requesting.
I was also asked in IRC discussion how an omitted property is different from having a certain value, and the most obvious place where that matters is 8.12.10 step 5, for the case Object.defineProperty({}, "foo", {}) -- a case whose utility seems extremely suspect.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
