that is a (quick/imperfect/asexample) way to detect a proxy while I understand these should not be detectable.
Consider that as conditional check after node instanceof Element in order to know if that node is usable or not as DOM element. There, a way to simulate an isProxy method and it does not matter if that's silly ... is possible On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > This is silly. > > I can use the closure pattern to vend objects that do not satisfy the > internal constraints the DOM imposes on some of its objects. No proxies in > sight. > > So why is the method you wrote named "isDOMProxy" and whatever in the > world does it have to do with Proxy? > > /be > > Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > >> and in both cases you would have ... >> >> Proxy.isDOMProxy = function (node) { >> try { >> document.documentElement.**appendChild(node); >> document.documentElement.**removeChild(node); >> return false; >> } catch(gotcha) { >> return true; >> } >> }; >> >> that's why I have talked about inconsistencies all over at the very >> beginning of this thread :) >> >> br >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Nathan Wall <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Nathan wrote: >> > >> > Hey Tom, I think you missed my point. The point was that in >> David and Boris' discussion they agreed that the DOM should throw >> if it is given a Proxy in `appendChild`. That sounded to me like >> it presumed that the DOM had a magical ability to distinguish >> between DOM objects and their proxies. That seemed to contradict >> the point David made that Proxies should not be distinguishable >> from their targets (e.g. the no `Proxy.isProxy` decision). If real >> DOM had a way to determine if something was a proxy (with a target >> of a *real* DOM node) and throw but there was no way for an >> emulated DOM (in a non-DOM environment) to determine if an object >> was a proxy with a target to an emulated DOM node or just a plain >> emulated DOM node, then the DOM has magical abilities that the >> emulated DOM can't have. That was my concern. >> > >> > David's reply works, though, I think. He stated that since you >> have to create DOM nodes using a method of the DOM itself >> (`document.createElement`, `document.createTextNode`), then >> emulated DOM could track all objects created and compare them >> against objects passed into `appendChild`, and since a proxy would >> have a different object identity from its target, the emulated DOM >> would have a way to distinguish proxies from their targets. >> > >> > Nathan >> >> >> In short, if real DOM can throw when given a proxy of a real DOM >> node, fake DOM should also be able to throw when given a proxy of >> a fake DOM node. >> ______________________________**_________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]**> >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
