W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2011

[Bug 11267] Add a [NonConfigurable] extended attribute

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:55:47 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QZvcZ-0007NW-2x@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> 2011-06-24 01:55:46 UTC ---
Sorry to bikeshed, but isn't the bigger effect that [NonConfigureable] has the
fact that it moves the property from the prototype to the leaf object? If so,
wouldn't something like [LeafProperty] or [ObjectProperty] be a better name?

Also, what happens for if something has [NonConfigureable] (or [LeafProperty]
or [ObjectProperty] or whatever) but isn't marked as readonly? Is that invalid
IDL or does that have some meaning?

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 01:55:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:03 UTC