- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:01:36 +0200
- 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.) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 09:02:04 UTC