- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:44:11 +1000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Boris Zbarsky: > I guess from my point of view, extending the existing member > [Unforgeable] to a wider class of members without changing anything else > about it seems simpler than having two separate meanings to > [Unforgeable] depending on what it's decorating... But maybe we're > thinking about simplicity in different contexts? > > (Note we'll still need single-readonly-attribute [Unforgeable] for > several properties on Window and Document, no matter what we do with > Location.) I did forget this. My simplicity involved getting rid of [Unforgeable] interface members, so obviously we can't do that then. But I don't like having to add a valueOf operation to the IDL. So maybe we can a separately named extended attribute on the interface that results in valueOf being unforgeable. What about other functions from Object.prototype, by the way? toLocaleString, watch, hasOwnProperty, etc.? If there are a bunch of properties (that don't correspond to IDL members) that need protecting, maybe handling it in [DefineOwnProperty] is the simplest thing to do.
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 04:44:56 UTC