W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Making properties of a class unenumerable

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:01:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78gq96zKs5u1ZA7XZxWPHjrSd3joYmqU1+yuJ+QHyuu5+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Andrea Marchesini <baku@mozilla.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> Yes, this was a conscious design decision by TC39.  See
> https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2012-09/sept-18.md#concise-method-definition-revisited
> and a change from what was original proposed.  TC39 consensus was driven by
> the belief that JS developers expect everything they define to be
> enumerable.

That makes sense. However, is it problematic if "platform objects" do
not always follow this pattern? Boris and I are basically unsure
whether the restriction is meant to apply to everything defined
outside of TC39.

(Note that there are some implications here for
https://gist.github.com/annevk/6bfa782752dde6acb379 as then these
objects would not behave like built-ins, but still be built-ins.)

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 09:02:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC