- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:22:07 -0500
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 12/15/12 12:05 PM, David Bruant wrote: > I guess that reveals a different invariant violation :-) Why? > I guess you meant "non-configurable" here. Yes. > But it creates a violation of ES5, because it means that > var/let/const/function global declaration aren't reflected as > non-configurable "reflected"? The section of ES5 in question describes how the properties are created. That's how they would be created on the Window object: as non-configurable. If you then ask some _other_ object about those property names, they might get reported as configurable, but I don't see the invariant violation there. > I think the solution may just be to reflect as configurable, but act as if > it was non-configurable (and I guess non-writable for "const" declarations) That would be the practical upshot of them being actually non-configurable on the Window but the WindowProxy lying about it, yes. -Boris
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 17:22:36 UTC