Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I agree that the only security issue is avoiding the
communications channel.
Security aside, given maximin
class Foo
what do you suggest Foo.prototype be?
That was too vague. Reformulating.
Private properties, i.e., properties named by symbols, are the class
analog to the internal properties of the built ins. The current
[[Class]] tests in ES5 are there essentially to ensure that these
internal properties exist and satisfy whatever invariant is assumed.
In maximin classes, we don't expand methods with an analog of that
[[Class]] check. Rather, the presence of these private symbol-named
properties implicitly provides the branding. Say class Foo uses symbol
@s to name a private instance property of instances of Foo, and that
method bar() of Foo accesses this @s property, failing if the object
doesn't have an @s. Clearly, bar() should fail on Foo.prototype just
as it should fail on any non-instance of Foo. This is already implied
by the mechanisms proposed for installing private instance variables.
Yup, and I dig it (Jason Orendorff many years ago suggested that Date
should not have a [[Class]] check, rather simply use private-named
properties which might even be inherited).
So is the only issue here that @@toStringTag is not set to "Foo", as
Yusuke just suggested?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
