- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:48:39 -0500
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 12/15/12 12:42 PM, David Bruant wrote: > In that context, I mean "reported by Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor". > You say "reported" below. It's the same idea. Ah, OK. I thought you were talking about what the property actually "is" on the object. If we're just talking about getOwnPropertyDescriptor, which already lies like crazy in browsers, then I agree we need to figure out exactly it should lie here. > The underlying window may change, but the same WindowProxy object must > show some consistency. It's the same object (identity equality). Sure. I think we're in violent agreement here. >> That would be the practical upshot of them being actually >> non-configurable on the Window but the WindowProxy lying about it, yes. > Interesting. That would be an interesting way to think of it from an > implementation perspective. But as far as authors are concerned, the > non-[Unforgeable] properties would always be reflected as configurable; > no way to observe the Window/WindowProxy difference you describe. Well, there are ways to observe it indirectly. But yes, no way to invoke getOwnPropertyDescriptor on the Window directly. -Boris
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 17:49:07 UTC