On Jul 16, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:

> All current engines I could try return Number.prototype for:
>  
> 12[“__proto__”]
>  
> But the new spec says this should be a TypeError.
>  
> It’s more consistent with the other members of Object.prototype to do an implicit ToObject here, and apparently matches existing implementations.  Is it intentional that the spec is treating this as a TypeError?
>  

Well, it was intentional, but perhaps wrong. As you say, the  set accessor probably needs to do a ToObject.  The set accessor probably only needs to do a CheckObjectCoercible  followed by an immediate return if the type of this is not Object (the wrapper and hence it's modified [[Prototype]] isn't observable, so it doesn't actually need to be created).

File a bug, and I'll put the revised algorithms into the ticket.

Allen




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130716/a35ab279/attachment.html>

On Jul 16, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
> Is it intentional that the spec is treating this as a `TypeError`?

Well, it was intentional, but perhaps wrong. As you say, the  set accessor probably needs to do a ToObject.  The set accessor probably only needs to do a CheckObjectCoercible  followed by an immediate return if the type of this is not `Object` (the wrapper and hence it's modified [[Prototype]] isn't observable, so it doesn't actually need to be created).

File a bug, and I'll put the revised algorithms into the ticket.