- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 14:02:09 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22320 --- Comment #13 from Mark S. Miller <erights@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #12) > Oh, and my point is, it's not clear to me that doing anything other than the > simplest possible implementation of these objects is worth the time, pain, > effort, and performance impact it would seemingly entail... > > If people come up with a proposal that behaves sanely and does _not_ entail > those problems, so much the better, of course. Hi Boris, thanks, I understand better now. Given all this, the proposal would simply be to have getOwnPropertyNames return a list of all the own property names. After all, that is what it is for and what it means. The operation was not added on JavaScript on a whim, so it shouldn't be broken lightly. And you agree that this would not create any compat issues. The notion of "simplest" should be judged regarding the overall system, not of the browser implementation taken by itself. Breaking expectations about fundamental operations forces expensive workarounds on our users. For example, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi prevented SpiderMonkey from being considered SES-safe for a very long time. The workaround at https://code.google.com/p/google-caja/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/caja/ses/repairES5.js#3127 was only possible once we knew the worst case list of possible missing properties. It doesn't sound like even this workaround would be possible in this case. There are a lot more users than implementors, and the complexity of implementing getOwnProperties correctly is not unreasonable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 14:02:15 UTC