- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:30:32 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29418
Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bzbarsky@mit.edu
--- Comment #1 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> ---
> Because that seems to be the only reason why we wouldn't return a property
> descriptor for undefined here.
You mean at the point where we set ignoreNamedProps to true in
http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#getownproperty-guts step 1.3?
It's possible that this predates the change to make [[DefineOwnProperty]] just
disallow adding indexed-looking props, assuming it ever allowed it. So back
then you could have expandos with integer names and those were supposed to get
picked up via step 3.
That said, I guess someone _could_ in theory define an unforgeable thing named
"_1" (in the IDL) on an interface with indexed props. That seems silly and we
should not support it. So I think you're right that we could just return here
if we wanted to, though it should be equivalent to fall through, since we know
step 3 won't find anything.
Note that we do still need the ignoreNamedProps thing in general, for [[Set]]
to work right.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2016 14:30:34 UTC