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

[Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:45:11 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23682-3890-QX5lhPwhyX@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #20 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> ---
(In reply to Anne from comment #19)
> readonly is for when there's no setter, just a getter, as far as I know.

This doesn't explain why objects having immutable state is "like JS", but
arrays having immutable state is "not like JS".

Or, put it another way, why a property whose value is a single object being
immutable is "like JS", but a property whose value is a list of objects being
immutable is "not like JS".

Yes, JS has getter without setters. But JS also has frozen Arrays.

I can see lots of problems with Object.freeze. However I don't see any of those
problems applying to Arrays which are frozen before they are exposed to
external code.

If you think there are problems with the proposed solution, please provide a
more detailed explanation than that it's "not like JS".

> As for where this was discussed, somewhere around
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2014/04/03-f2f-minutes.html I assume.

There's virtually no discussion there about arrays as far as I can see.
Definitely no technical arguments.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 10:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC