Yes. The problem is not that DefineOwnProperty is not acting more like
assignment. The problem is that super.prop = x; is acting too much like
DefineOwnProperty and too little like assignment.


On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
wrote:

>
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Caitlin Potter wrote:
>
> > It makes perfect sense for Object.defineProperty, but maybe not so much
> sense for PutValue(). One idea was to just add an `return false if
> existingDescriptor.[[Writable]] is false.` Before
> receiver.[[DefineOwnProperty]]()`.
>
> yes, something like that.  I'm working on the fix right now.  But it's
> probably more complicated then that.  Consider what happens if the Receiver
> already has an like-named own accessor property...
>
> I think in that case it needs to fail. Otherwise, the current algorithm
> will turn the accessor property into a data property, which seems even more
> bogus then the ignore writable behavior.
>
> Allen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Caitlin Potter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Oh — he’s right, ValidateAndApplyPropertyDescriptor won’t throw in the
> example case, because the old descriptor is configurable. That’s kind of
> weird.
> >>
> >> It is kind of weird, but that was what TC39 decided on back when ES5
> was being developed.  The logic was that if a property is configurable then
> it is possible to change all of its attributes  by performing a
> [[DefineOwnProperty]] with a complete property description.   Because of
> that possibility, all changes made via a partial property descriptor are
> also accepted.  In other words:
> >>
> >> var o = Object.create(null, {x:{value: 0, writable: false, enumerable:
> true, configurable:true}});
> >> Object.defineProperty(o,' x', {value:2});
> >> console.log(o.x); //2
> >>
> >> The define property above is allowed because it could have been
> replaced with the sequence :
> >> Object.defineProperty(o,'x', {writable: true});
> >> Object.defineProperty(o,'x', {value: 2, writable: false});
> >>
> >> or even by:
> >> delete o.x;
> >> Object.defineProperty(o,'x', {value: 2, writable: false, enumerable:
> true, configurable: true};)
> >>
> >> hence, we might as well accept the single line version.
> >>
> >> In retrospect, perhaps not such a good idea.
> >>
> >> Allen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

  Cheers,
  --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150421/65714b19/attachment.html>

Yes. The problem is not that DefineOwnProperty is not acting more like
assignment. The problem is that super.prop = x; is acting too much like
DefineOwnProperty and too little like assignment.