W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2010

RE: Configurable, writable "const" values?

From: Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:17:17 +0000
To: Johnny Stenback <jst@mozilla.org>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "Jonas Sicking (jonas@sicking.cc)" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B3826470C@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Excellent. Thanks for all the feedback folks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Stenback [mailto:jst@mozilla.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:50 PM
To: Brendan Eich
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Travis Leithead; Cameron McCormack; public-script-coord@w3.org; Jonas Sicking (jonas@sicking.cc)
Subject: Re: Configurable, writable "const" values?

I can't say I recall things being the way they are for any good reason, my guess is that it was an oversight back in the day that went unnoticed until now. I'd be happy to change Firefox to have constant constants. :)

On 12/01/2010 02:27 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Constants should be constant. Two thumbs up on that.
>
> Not sure why we and IE do what we do. My memory fails me (this was well after my DOM level 0 creating days). Johnny Stenback may recall.
>
> /be
>
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>>
>>> I was reviewing browser Interop for the following scenario, and want to get your take on the matter (because some recent W3C test submissions are exercising these assumptions and IE is considering changing our implementation):
>>>
>>> var original = Node.ELEMENT_NODE;
>>> Node.ELEMENT_NODE = "ten";
>>> var check = Node.ELEMENT_NODE;
>>> if (original !== check)
>>>    alert("const properties aren't constant"); else
>>>    alert("const properties can't be written");
>>>
>>>
>>> Tested__      Result__
>>> WebIDL        not writable
>>> Opera         not writable
>>> IE9           writable
>>> FF4           writable
>>> Chrome7       not writable
>>> Safari5       not writable
>>>
>>> Any objections if IE9 changes to not writable? I presume FF would also eventually change? Is there a web compatibility reason for not doing this?
>>
>> I don't think there is a web compatibility constraint here. Safari has had the "not writable" behavior for a long time. I expect the other way does not have a problem either. So we should pick what is more sensible as the standard behavior. I think making constants constant is more sensible. I think we'd be open to changing WebKit's behavior if we come to consensus that the writable way is better.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 00:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:03 UTC