[replying to the two issues separately]
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Syntax aside, is the observable semantics of Names different from
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:inherited_explicit_soft_fields?
How? If the only semantic
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
In the names proposal, it seems that once in scope of a private draw
declaration, all apparent uses of draw as a property name are amplifying.
Even if the object being accessed has a normally named draw property,
2010/9/2 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Erik Corry erik.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely that is the case with WeakMap? At least unless you lost the
key and don't have any other references to the value. In which case
you can't reach the value any more, so
But HashMaps and WeakMaps both map objects to values. The difference is just
that, with WeakMaps, the mapping is weak. The name is excellent, short, and
clear.
Perhaps ObjectMap would be better?
That wouldn't distinguish them from HashMaps, since they are both object maps.
WeakMap is a
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Mike momentarily forgot what they mean
Yes, it was a lapse from a casual observer reading the conversations
quickly; please don't let my brain-blip harm the sweet naming.
Mike
___
From email on this thread and from private email I've received, I'm a bit
worried that my earlier message was misunderstood. I agree that we're not
going to secure JavaScript well enough to solve the covert channel problem.
I stated so:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Mark S. Miller
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
From email on this thread and from private email I've received, I'm a bit
worried that my earlier message was misunderstood.
I wrote covert channel too, when inviiting you to reply -- sorry about that,
you're right that the side channel is
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
From email on this thread and from private email I've received, I'm a bit
worried that my earlier message was misunderstood.
I wrote covert channel too, when
2010/8/14 Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ash Berlin ash...@firemirror.com wrote:
On 14 Aug 2010, at 07:22, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I have a few questions regarding the WeakMap API.
1. Why isn't there a way to check for presence of a key (using
I would like to agree that .keys would expose some of the internal workings
of the GC. This is true, but the solution to that could be to remove .keys()
off the individual WeakMap for secure operations, however in some situations
where a WeakMap is sandboxed within a closure or such, having .keys
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Bradley Meck bradley.m...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to agree that .keys would expose some of the internal workings
of the GC. This is true, but the solution to that could be to remove .keys()
off the individual WeakMap for secure operations,
Remove off of
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Erik Corry erik.co...@gmail.com wrote:
And this is as it should be. As it stands the weak map can be used as
an object with private members. The object key acts as a capability
that controls whether or not you have access to the private member.
If I were to
That page currently has TBD semantics. Two questions:
Syntax aside, is the observable semantics of Names different from
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:inherited_explicit_soft_fields?
How? If the only semantic difference is (not normally observable) less
aggressive GC
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
That page currently has TBD semantics. Two questions:
Syntax aside, is the observable semantics of Names different from
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:inherited_explicit_soft_fields?
How? If the only
That page currently has TBD semantics.
Yeah, that's part of the work that needs to be done. Intuitively, it's a simple
idea: ToName essentially generalizes the current semantics of property lookup;
instead of trying to convert the property to a string, you try to convert it to
a
2010/9/2 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Erik Corry erik.co...@gmail.com wrote:
And this is as it should be. As it stands the weak map can be used as
an object with private members. The object key acts as a capability
that controls whether or not you have
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Erik Corry erik.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely that is the case with WeakMap? At least unless you lost the
key and don't have any other references to the value. In which case
you can't reach the value any more, so why would you care whether it
is kept alive?
On Sep 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
(Btw, *please* don't call non-strict mode normal.)
To emphasize Mark's point, ES-Harmony is based on strict mode. It's the new
normal :-P.
/be___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Bradley Meck wrote:
I am not sure that would make it a regular map. Having the keys available
does not ensure that the keys will not be collected.
That's the crux of the matter. Mark
It is native code, all ECMAScript based solutions would leak as of right
now.
I am also unsure you could tell what has been collected since you would need
to maintains a reference to that object, you could however tell how many
objects are left for possible collection. You could do a complex
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
3. Why isn't there a way to iterate over the keys?
Because then it would be a regular map, not a weak map. This is something that
only a debugger should be able to do.
Waldemar
___
es-discuss mailing list
I have a few questions regarding the WeakMap API.
1. Why isn't there a way to check for presence of a key (using has/contains)?
Given that undefined is a valid value it is not sufficient to just
return undefined for get
2. Why isn't there a way to remove a key-value-pair?
Setting the value to
On 14 Aug 2010, at 07:22, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I have a few questions regarding the WeakMap API.
1. Why isn't there a way to check for presence of a key (using has/contains)?
Given that undefined is a valid value it is not sufficient to just
return undefined for get
Does the standard
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
I have a few questions regarding the WeakMap API.
1. Why isn't there a way to check for presence of a key (using
has/contains)?
Given that undefined is a valid value it is not sufficient to just
return
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ash Berlin ash...@firemirror.com wrote:
On 14 Aug 2010, at 07:22, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I have a few questions regarding the WeakMap API.
1. Why isn't there a way to check for presence of a key (using
has/contains)?
Given that undefined is a valid
Thanks for the answers Mark.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 14:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a few questions regarding the WeakMap API.
1. Why isn't there a way to check for presence of a key
I think Ash brings up a valid point here. From a usability point it is
a clear win to use [], delete and in for WeakMaps and Maps.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 14:02, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ash Berlin ash...@firemirror.com wrote:
On 14 Aug 2010, at
[+openstrat, +istvan]
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks for the answers Mark.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 14:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
I think Ash brings up a valid point here. From a usability point it is
a clear win to use [], delete and in for WeakMaps and Maps.
We've been over this territory before. How would you reconcile this (quite
On 14 Aug 2010, at 23:58, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think Ash brings up a valid point here. From a usability point it is
a clear win to use [], delete and in for WeakMaps and Maps.
We've been over this territory
30 matches
Mail list logo
