2010/9/2 Mike Shaver <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Erik Corry <[email protected]> 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 be using an object with private members, I would > certainly expect that those members would keep their values alive.
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? > Wouldn't it be better to just use a regular object, and add private > members via defineProperty to make them non-enumerable? That is certainly a fine way to do private members if they only need to be private by convention and there are no security issues around them being private. > I'm not in favour of WeakMap enumerability, really, but it seems that > there's an easier way to address this particular use case. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
