- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:16:13 -0400
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 9/25/12 7:58 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > OK. I propose then that we allow [Unforgeable] on the interface, which > means: > > * attributes get own, non-configurable accessor properties (with setters > if they are not readonly attributes), and no property on the prototype > * operations get own, non-configurable, non-writable properties, and no > property on the prototype > * the stringifier gets an own, non-configurable, non-writable toString > property, and no property on the prototype > * there is an own, non-configurable, non-writable valueOf property that > just returns this I can live with this, but why is this better than just allowing [Unforgeable] on all operations and attributes and defining an "object valueOf(); /* returns self */ " on Location? > This would make Location.prototype empty. Is that OK? It seems to already be empty in Chrome, unless I screwed up my testing. And maybe in IE. Location.prototype per se doesn't even exist in Safari, iirc, though location.__proto__ is nonempty... So yeah, I think it would be OK. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 01:16:44 UTC