domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-07-23T02:38:58.269Z)
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > Well, it was intentional, but perhaps wrong. As you say, the set accessor probably needs to do a ToObject. Did you mean "...the *get* accessor..." ?
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > > 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. > Did you mean "...the *get* accessor..." ? > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130716/cf3505d1/attachment.html>