- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:19:38 -0400
- To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 10/16/15 11:57 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > What I was trying to point out was that by speccing a sufficiently powerful proxy object we could stay entirely within ES semantics While true, if I recall correctly abarth had objections to that specification approach because of the difficulty of proving that Blink's implementation is black-box indistinguishable from it. So you probably want to consult with whoever is responsible for this stuff in Blink right now before going down this road. > 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. I believe the intent of the current etherpad is to describe constraints in more or less those terms (which most closely match how Blink implements this stuff right now), but in a way that can map to different implementation strategies. Again, the choice of specification language was largely to placate the Blink implementors into maybe even considering implementing the resulting spec. -Boris
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 16:20:15 UTC