Yes. Under SES, Object is shared by Alice and Bob (and Carol). But it is not a communications channel since it (and all its methods, etc) are all frozen.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM, François REMY <[email protected]>wrote: > Sorry, I don’t understand how. [[boundFunctions]] is not readable from > the script itself, only from the UA. > > To retreive an element from [[boundFunctions]] you need the original > function used to create it. If you’ve recieved an instance to that > function, you already have a communication channel, right? Or am I missing > something? > > *From:* Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, January 06, 2012 5:53 PM > *To:* François REMY <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Brendan Eich <[email protected]> ; Andrea > Giammarchi<[email protected]>; > es-discuss <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Improving Function.prototype.bind > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:29 AM, François REMY > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Such an implementation would be very slow and not efficient, because >> searching for a key in the "boundFunctions" weakmap would take time. It can >> be a polyfill solution but a new implementation need something better. >> >> I think the solution would be to create an "invisible" [[boundFunctions]] >> property for all objects containing a dictionnary<weak<function>, >> weak<boundFunction>> of already-bound functions on the object. The >> implementation of bind would then be : >> >> - if objToBind is not a reference, create a new boundFunction and return >> it. >> - if objToBind.[[boundFunctions]] don't exist, create it. >> - else, check if it contains a key for functionToBind //when you are >> processing the dictionnary, remove obsolete entries you may find >> - if yes, check if the weak reference is alive >> - if yes, returns the boundFunction >> - create a new boundFunction and store it into >> objToBind.[[boundFunctions]] >> - return the newly created boundFunction >> >> Would that be possible? >> > > No, for the same reason. The mutable state you hung off this internal > property creates an ambient communications channel. > > >> >> François >> >> >> >> -----Message d'origine----- From: Brendan Eich >> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:22 AM >> To: Andrea Giammarchi >> Cc: Axel Rauschmayer ; François REMY ; es-discuss >> Subject: Re: Improving Function.prototype.bind >> >> On Jan 5, 2012, at 4:47 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> >> Guys, by any chance we can go back into the topic? >>> >> >> You'll have to polyfill Function.prototype.bind in the current world of >> pre-ES5 browsers. Why not then go on to wrap it in a memoizing version that >> uses a WeakMap if available (emulated with strong keys/values array-based >> implementation if not)? >> >> If you need this machinery, it's all doable. If we should evolve a >> Harmony bind or betterBind based on your experience and others, we can do >> that. >> >> Right now the lack of memoization is not a burning issue, from what I >> hear. You've raised it, I think for the first time on es-discuss. >> >> /be >> ______________________________**_________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
