On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu>wrote:
> 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. > That's interesting. Could you expand on the "insufficient" part of the argument? I hadn't gotten that. Thanks. > > > 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 > -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ 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
