On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Mark Miller <erig...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sam, I read and followed your message, but I'm now confused about the > topic. Are we discussing hypothetical variants of JS in which we are happy > to trust user code to uphold system invariants? Or are we discussing what > can actually be done in current and future JS? If the former, I agree, but > why is this a more interesting question than what we would do if we had even > fewer legacy constraints?
My impression is we're talking about whether it's sensible to propose a change that extends the behavior of proxies with regard to equality (whether that's `===` or some other form of equality). I don't think I was assuming that we trust user code to uphold system constraints. Instead, I was arguing that the restriction to "checkably pure" code is insufficient when you actually don't trust the other code, and excessive when you do. > Checkable purity in E is based on E's auditors which are haphazardly > documented. I'll try to find some relevant pointers soon. Joe-E's auditors > are based on E's. Checkable purity in Joe-E is explained at > <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/pure-ccs08.pdf>. Thanks. Sam _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list dev-tech-js-engine-internals@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
