On Jun 13, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:

> On Fri Jun 13 2014 at 3:41:02 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> 
> Hold on. We covered this in one of the face to face meetings and I was of the impression it was decided that we should not have a fallback but instead throw.
> 
> https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/48c5d285bf8bf0c4e6e8bb0c02a7c840c01cd2ff/es6/2013-01/jan-29.md#48-refactored-new-operator-and-the-create-method 

My impression was that the discussion on that pooint was inconclusive.  This margin note has been in the ES6 draft for a couple of years:

"At Jan 29, 2012 TC39 serveral peopled suggest that this fall back was unnecessary complexity and that it should this throw.  However, that means that an ECMAScript function whose __proto__ is set to null will throw if newed.  I’m not sure that is desirable. It’s a breaking change for the reality web."


I don't think we had consensus about whether we are willing to accept such a breaking change.   However, the eliminating [[Construct]] path would probably push me over the edge into accepting that.

Allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140613/111ea5df/attachment-0001.html>

My impression was that the discussion on that pooint was inconclusive.  This margin note has been in the ES6 draft for a couple of years:

"At Jan 29, 2012 TC39 serveral peopled suggest that this fall back was unnecessary complexity and that it should this throw.  However, that means that an ECMAScript function whose `__proto__` is set to `null` will throw if newed.  I’m not sure that is desirable. It’s a breaking change for the reality web."


I don't think we had consensus about whether we are willing to accept such a breaking change.   However, the eliminating [[Construct]] path would probably push me over the edge into accepting that.