2012/10/5 Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> > > > Indeed, which is why I'm not sure I understand what this idea is trying > to achieve. Is it more than just an ad hoc way to introduce a second > namespace? > > Yes, is this noticeably better than just saying "use > '__space_of_strings_<string>'"? What does this new API accomplish that > can't already be done with a conventional prefix in the normal space of > strings?
I also find Symbol.for questionable. If everyone starts to define their symbols using Symbol.for, we have achieved nothing in the way of uniqueness/unforgeability. It seems to me the only reasonable way to deal with globally unique symbols is to always make sure that any object containing symbols that crosses frames is serialized and unserialized in such a way that a "global" symbol from the originating frame is deserialized into the corresponding "global" symbol from the recipient frame. That's how one needs to deal with these issues in distributed computing between isolated processes as well. If symbols break across frames, I think the fault lies not with the symbols. I think the fault lies with the fact that the object on which the symbol was defined didn't "properly" cross the frame boundaries. Perhaps we need better abstractions to interpose between frame boundaries? Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
