{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alex-weej/es-reflect-type-proposal/issues/1","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alex-weej/es-reflect-type-proposal/issues/1/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alex-weej/es-reflect-type-proposal/issues/1/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alex-weej/es-reflect-type-proposal/issues/1/events","html_url":"https://github.com/alex-weej/es-reflect-type-proposal/issues/1","id":84240869,"number":1,"title":"Well-known Symbols + configurability/writability","user":{"login":"ljharb","id":45469,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45469?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb","html_url":"https://github.com/ljharb","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ljharb/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2015-06-02T22:29:42Z","updated_at":"2015-06-02T22:29:42Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Would `@@undefinedType` also then be `Symbol.undefinedType`, per the established convention for well-known `Symbol`s?\r\n\r\nWould they thus be non-configurable/non-writable on `Symbol`? What about on `Reflect.types`? Would `types` itself similarly be non-configurable/non-writable on `Reflect`?"}}