On Jun 12, 2014, at 8:33 AM, André Bargull wrote:

>> I'd be most interested in seeing if we can remove IsConstructor entirely (except for uses where it's just a guard, implementing the semantics of `new` via IsConstructor -> [[Construct]] or throw).
>> 
>> It seems like there's at least some movement toward removing it from `Array.of` and `Array.from`. All that remains is its use to preserve the `arrayInstance.constructor = undefined` backward-compatibility possibilities. My preference would be to see if we can get away with breaking that use case, and reintroduce it if that turns out not to be web-compatible.
> 
> The [[Realm]] check in Array.prototype.* is even more annoying than the IsConstructor guard, but unfortunately required for web-compatibility per [1]. :-(
> 
> [1] http://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-slice-web-compat-issue

Yes! Please don't rock the boat with regard to this stuff.  It's all there to address real compatibility issues.  

Allen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140612/b7ac8b0c/attachment.html>

On Jun 12, 2014, at 8:33 AM, André Bargull wrote:

> The [[Realm]] check in Array.prototype.* is even more annoying than the IsConstructor guard, but unfortunately required for web-compatibility per [1](http://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-slice-web-compat-issue). :-(

Yes! Please don't rock the boat with regard to this stuff.  It's all there to address real compatibility issues.