W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: ArrayClass should imply @@isConcatSpreadable

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:54:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-LAt7=9tZhO7Agd8Gr6fy9zyj3CKS3zDu3h51sovJiLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> In terms of existing ArrayClass objects that are shipping on the web right
>> now, Gecko is shipping (though perhaps not in final releases yet) the .ports
>> of a MessageEvent and the return value of getClientRects(). I _think_
>> changing the concat() behavior of these should be OK. Certainly for .ports,
>> which we haven't been shipping for very long at all.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Could we still change those to actual arrays? I guess for .ports that
> might be trickier as it implies a readonly view.

Lets just return a frozen Array. I know that people on TC39 has said
that it's ugly, but I still think it's far less ugly than creating a
whole pile of host classes just because we lack immutable arrays.

> ArrayClass feels like a hack.

Agreed.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 23:55:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:19 UTC