One way or another we need a way to reflectively identify all the non-private own property keys of an object including non-private symbols keys.
If we think the compat risk of adding symbols to the result of Object.getOwnProperyNames is too great (and we've recently discussed why this might not be much of a compat risk) then we need to add a new Object.getOwnPropertyKeys that does include them. Allen On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote: > Or I guess to clarify, I don't understand what the distinction is between a > private symbol and a unique symbol if unique symbols don't show up anywhere. > So I jumped to the assumption that they did show up in gOPN based on what I > read. > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Brandon Benvie <[email protected]> > wrote: > Ah I guess I misread what was said back in the July meeting and then > misinterpreted the recent discussion in that framing. The recent discussion > I'm referring to is at and around > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-November/026536.html > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Brandon Benvie wrote: > By design, private symbols can only be used if you have direct access to them > in some way. > > Right. > > > Public symbols should show up in getOwnPropertyNames (if I have followed > recent discussion correctly). > > I don't recall this, and it's an incompatible change from ES5. Can you link > to an es-discuss message on it? > > > The fact that private symbols must be explicitly passed around to gain access > to them is their primary feature. > > Yup. > > /be > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
