Should we disallow static method definitions whose PropName is "prototype" or "constructor"?

[JLHwung]

The proposal throws early error if PropName of FieldDefinition is "prototype" or "constructor".

Should we also throw early error for accessors? i.e.

class C {
  static get constructor() {}
  static set constructor(_) {}
}

and

class C {
  static get prototype() {}
  static set prototype(_) {}
}

Related

35 mentions static constructor() {} is meant to work with https://github.com/erights/Orthogonal-Classes/commit/93bd1c4a19acd3155b62b6f27e94f9ef98a13a11, but should we throw on the following cases?

class C {
  static prototype() {}
}

Implementation status as of June 2020

Although current spec have not forbid the cases mentioned above, current implementations banned prototype but allowed constructor in method definitions.

(✔️ for pass and ❌for throwing error)

	Babel	SM	V8
static get constructor() {}	✔️	✔️	✔️
static set constructor(_) {}	✔️	✔️	✔️
static get prototype() {}	❌	❌	❌
static set prototype(_) {}	❌	❌	❌
static prototype() {}	❌	❌	❌

Given the current implementation status, I think we can at least consider add to the spec

ClassElement: static MethodDefinition It is a Syntax Error if PropName of MethodDefinition is "prototype"

As for constructor, IMO if we throw on static constructor;, then we should also disallow static get constructor() {} and static set constructor(_) {}

[bakkot]

That syntax has been legal since ES2015, and I don't think it makes sense to change it as part of this proposal.

[jridgewell]

As for constructor, IMO if we throw on static constructor;

I think this should be done as a needs-consensus PR, not this proposal.

[JLHwung]

I misread the spec: "prototype" is banned as propName of MethodDefinition in Class: https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-class-definitions-static-semantics-early-errors