- From: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:57:52 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu] > I'm open to whatever spec language we care to write which allows the variety of implementation strategies we want to allow while providing the guarantees we desire. OK, great. What I was trying to point out was that by speccing a sufficiently powerful proxy object we could stay entirely within ES semantics, instead of redefining the === operator. It sounded like you were proposing speccing a world where multiple different objects get minted and then we override the definition of ===, but I guess you were just talking about implementation strategies, and were not making a spec proposal.
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 15:58:29 UTC