On 22 April 2013 15:49, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> However, in that case, I actually think that there is no need to have
>> any special poisoning semantics when reflecting __proto__ -- mainly
>> because the cross-realm check is already necessary in the unreflected
>> case: you can construct an object o in realm A with an
>> Object.prototype from another realm B on its proto chain. If you
>> deleted __proto__ on realm's A Object.prototype, I don't think it
>> should still be possible to assign to o.__proto__, should it?
>
> Why not, if in realm A we evaluate 'var o =
> Object.create(B.Object.prototype)'? You specified 'delete
> A.Object.prototype' happened, and A.Object.prototype is not on o's proto
> chain.
My understanding of the motivation for poisoning was to enable the
deletion of O.p.__proto__ when configuring a realm as a means for
guaranteeing that no object from that realm can ever have its
prototype mutated. Allowing the above case would seem to shoot a hole
into that.
// Realm A
delete Object.prototype.__proto__ // no messing around
let other = getObjectFromSomewherePotentiallyAnotherRealmB()
let p1 = Object.create(other, {a: {value: 1}})
let o = Object.create(p1)
let p2 = Object.create({})
o.__proto__ = p2 // say what?
>> Whether a
>> difference should be made between quoted and unquoted I don't know, I
>> must have missed the rationale for such a move.
>
> I think we're not going to induce vomiting by making a quoted vs. unquoted
> distinction, in light of Mark's point about computed property names.
OK, good. :)
/Andreas
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
