> As an aside: This problem would go away if we really did distinguish between > accessing a property and accessing a collection element. Then the former > would be done via Object.* methods, while the latter would be done via square > brackets. > > I admit that I haven't followed the previous thread on ".[" and such. Is > there a short summary? I ask because my diagnosis is similar but my > conclusion is reversed. The lesson I take from this is not to use objects as > maps. It you want a map, create a Map() and say map.get(key) and map.set(key, > value) rather than using square brackets. > > The remaining case is arrays. My conclusion there is to always say array[+i] > rather than array[i]. If Alice had already been practicing this as a habit, > then her table abstraction would have been naturally robust against this > attack even if Alice never thinks of this specific attack. > > Having eliminated both of these uses of unmarked square brackets (lists and > maps), the only remaining justified use of unmarked square bracket indexing > is reflection. If you see an unmarked square bracket that's not doing > reflection, you should probably refactor.
I agree completely (see also my other email): - Never use objects as maps. - Introduce collection classes. - Try to make arrays fit into the collection framework. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
