Hi Tom, as you and I discussed in chat, "(base case) there are no built-in private symbols in a standard JS environment (i.e. all the built-in symbols are unique)" is a bad misunderstanding of the utility of membranes. Membranes (and membrane-like patterns) are useful and needed at many finer-grains than realms. It is not safe to assume that no private symbols exist on both sides of any membrane. I think proposal #1 is fatally insecure. I'm glad you like #2.
Btw, there's a terminology problem, assuming you were referring to Joe-E's distinctions: In Joe-E terminology, private symbols are *immutable* but not *powerless*. (In E terms, private symbols are *DeepFrozen* but not * DeepPassByCopy* or *Data*.) On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just wrote up a strawman on the wiki to summarize the recent debates > about the interaction between proxies and private symbols: > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proxy_symbol_decoupled > > The page actually lists two proposals, out of which I prefer the second > one. > > If I forgot some benefits/drawbacks of either approach, please speak up. > Thanks. > > Cheers, > Tom > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
