On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>> Do you mean more then inclusion in Annex B? http://people.mozilla.org/~**
>> jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-**other-additional-features<http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-other-additional-features><
>> http://people.mozilla.org/%**7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#**
>> sec-other-additional-features<http://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-other-additional-features>>
>> The committee and community made the right move to go with
>> Object.setPrototypeOf().
>>
>
> Indeed, we reached a happy place with Object.setPrototypeOf in the
> normative spec, and Annex B specifying __proto__ for those JS embeddings
> that need it for interop.
>
> I'm not sure why you think I'm dissenting from any of that.


I read through the entire thread and the message I was responding to read
as though you meant that the committee would push forward on __proto__
(normative, non-annex) for the greater good of browser interop. It appears
I may have read too much into your statement and I apologize for the
confusion my response created.

Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131014/94491bac/attachment.html>

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Indeed, we reached a happy place with `Object.setPrototypeOf` in the
> normative spec, and Annex B specifying `__proto__` for those JS embeddings
> that need it for interop.
>
> I'm not sure why you think I'm dissenting from any of that.


I read through the entire thread and the message I was responding to read
as though you meant that the committee would push forward on `__proto__`
(normative, non-annex) for the greater good of browser interop. It appears
I may have read too much into your statement and I apologize for the
confusion my response created.