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 02:24:59 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QZw4p-0000NR-0i@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #12 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-06-24 02:24:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> 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?

It's a fair point.  I was thinking of [Unforgeable] or something along those

> 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?

I'd make it invalid IDL.

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 02:25:00 UTC

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