2013/1/28 Andreas Rossberg <rossb...@google.com>
> On 28 January 2013 19:45, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just wrote up a strawman on the wiki to summarize the recent debates
> about
> > the interaction between proxies and private symbols:
> >
> > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proxy_symbol_decoupled
> >
> > The page actually lists two proposals, out of which I prefer the second
> one.
> >
> > If I forgot some benefits/drawbacks of either approach, please speak up.
>
> Under the second approach, how can you transparently proxy an object
> with private properties _at all_? It seems like you can't, even when
> you have access to its private names. In other words, what do you mean
> by "inherit the private state of the target", when the target is still
> aliased and accessed?
>
What I had in mind was something along the lines of:
// wrap target in a proxy, "inheriting" the private state identified by
privateSymbols
function wrap(target, handler, privateSymbols) {
var p = Proxy(target, handler);
privateSymbols.forEach( symbol => {
Object.defineProperty(p, symbol, {
get: function() { return target[symbol]; },
set: function(val) { target[symbol] = val; }
});
});
return p;
}
Having written this out, I realize I further assumed that
Object.defineProperty would work for private symbols, and would similarly
not trap on a proxy. I think these assumptions are valid.
I further realize that under the above approach, we lose the ability for
the proxy to virtualize the *attributes* of properties keyed by private
symbols (i.e. target[symbol] may be a data property, while proxy[symbol]
will be an accessor). My assumption is that this is not that big a deal,
but we should be wary of this limitation.
Cheers,
Tom
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
