Re: [e-lang] Naming convention for variable holding an eventual reference

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood
<david.hopwood-mRVxzIiVagSlV3Ge8JjJtnfLna9zW77MtUK59QYPAWc@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Suppose that _$post, _$get, _$when etc. were defined on Object.prototype,
>> and [...]
>
> In other words, make these "final" methods of Object. A more general
> mechanism for final methods would be of no use in ES3 because it is
> untyped, so you couldn't rely on any given object being of a class/type
> that defines a method as final.


To my great surprise
<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es4-discuss/2008-May/002891.html>,
ES3 already conflates read-only with do-not-override. In order for
ES3.1 to remain compatible, it must be able to impose both
constraints, but it can unbundle them. There is no issue with
static-vs-dynamic typing. An object is born with an immutable
prototype chain. It there's a non-overridable property 'foo' already
on its prototype chain, then it can't get its own 'foo'. Assuming this
goes into ES3.1, it can eventually go into Caja as well.

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

 Cheers,
 --MarkM