I am having trouble parsing this:
"For each constant defined on the exception, there must be a corresponding property on the exception interface object, if it exists, if the identifier of the constant is not “prototype”. "
Can you please rephrase.
Yes that is confusingly worded. What I mean to say is that if there is an exception interface object (because sometimes there isn't, due to [NoInterfaceObject]) then it will have a property for each constant as long as the property name is not "prototype".
I forgot though that I've already forbidden any IDL definitions from having the name "prototype", so I can drop that conditional.
I've reworded it by talking about the exception interface prototype object first.