David Herman wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock<allen at wirfs-brock.com>  wrote:
>
>> Deleting Object.prototype.__proto__ will not be be specified as disabling {__proto__: foo}.
>
> Was that what we'd agreed to?

I think what Allen means is, whether or not there's a magic 
Object.prototype.__proto__, you can define (as in [[DefineOwnProperty]]) 
a plain old data property (or an accessor, for that matter, just 
different syntax) whose name is '__proto__' in an object literal.

This is specified by ES5, already.

/be

>   I hadn't remembered that. I don't like it because it's special-case syntax, but I can also live with it since it's no more powerful than Object.create().
>
> Do you know of a meeting minutes where we might have captured that decision?
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>

David Herman wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock<allen at wirfs-brock.com>  wrote:
>
>> Deleting `Object.prototype.__proto__` will not be be specified as disabling `{__proto__: foo}`.
>
> Was that what we'd agreed to?

I think what Allen means is, whether or not there's a magic 
`Object.prototype.__proto__`, you can define (as in [[DefineOwnProperty]]) 
a plain old data property (or an accessor, for that matter, just 
different syntax) whose name is `'__proto__'` in an object literal.

This is specified by ES5, already.