you might want to double check `Object.getPrototypeOf(generic)` does the
same as `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Object.prototype,
'__proto__').get.call(generic)`.

Apologies if this is already the case.

off topic: any idea when `Object.setPrototypeOf(generic, proto)` will be
rolled out and __proto__ not poisoned anymore ?

br


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.  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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130717/21382be8/attachment-0001.html>

you might want to double check `Object.getPrototypeOf(generic)` does the
same as `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Object.prototype, '__proto__').get.call(generic)`.

Apologies if this is already the case.

off topic: any idea when `Object.setPrototypeOf(generic, proto)` will be
rolled out and `__proto__` not poisoned anymore ?