got it, thanks again.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:31 PM, André Bargull <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/6/2014 11:35 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > >> autocomplete misspelled Andre' , apologies >> >> > No worries! :-) > > > >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Andrea Giammarchi >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks Andrew, I wonder if I should update the proposed spec >> somehow, but I thought as it is combines both Names and Symbols as >> abstract. >> > > > You mean this proposal https://gist.github.com/WebReflection/9353781, > right? It does not need to be changed, because the [[OwnPropertyKeys]] > internal method returns string and symbol valued property keys. Or to be > more correct, it returns string and symbol valued property keys for > ordinary objects. Proxy objects are currently allowed to return any value > from their [[OwnPropertyKeys]] internal method, because the result value of > the "ownKeys" trap is not checked at all. (Except of a simple type check to > ensure it is an object.) > > The proposed [[GetOwnPropertyNames]] internal method is supposed to be a > more restrictive version of [[OwnPropertyKeys]] to ensure Proxy objects > don't lie about their properties. This is only required for certain > integrity critical methods, like for example Object.isFrozen(). > > > > >> Please let me know and I'll update. >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:21 PM, André Bargull <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I would rephrase into this: >>> >>> if you need a getOwnPropertyNames trap, you might need for >>> consistency a >>> getOwnPropertySymbols independently from >>> getOwnPropertyDescriptors since >>> these methods are already available. >>> >> >> While it shares the same name with Object.getOwnPropertyNames(), >> this getOwnPropertyNames trap is supposed to return string and >> symbol keyed properties, see >> http://esdiscuss.org/topic/ownpropertykeys . >> >> >> >> I also would like to add a couple of links to support the fact >>> getOwnPropertyDescriptors >>> is needed, and has been asked for, since quite a while: this was >>> 11th of >>> November 2011 ... I didn't know it, and now that I do I wonder >>> why this has >>> been post-poned for so long and never discussed again. >>> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011- >>> November/018275.html >>> >> >> Or even earlier, >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:extended_ >> object_api >> from 2010. >> >> >> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:24 AM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at >>> cscott.net <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>>wrote: >>> >>> >/ If you use a getOwnPropertyNames trap, then you also need a >>> / >>> >/getOwnPropertySymbols trap to implement >>> getOwnPropertyDescriptors. />/--scott />// >>> >/ On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be at >>> gmail.com <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>> wrote: >>> />/ > 2014-03-05 20:11 GMT+01:00 C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript >>> at cscott.net <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>>: >>> />/ >> >>> />/ >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.beat >>> gmail.com <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>> >>> / >>> >/wrote: />/>> > Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(proxy) would >>> trigger the />/>> > getOwnPropertyNames trap, followed by >>> calls to the />/>> > getOwnPropertyDescriptor />/>> > trap for >>> each individual property. />/>> />/>> [[OwnPropertyKeys]], >>> `ownKeys` trap. />/> />/> />/> Yes, according to the current >>> draft spec. I have a pending discussion />/with />/> Allen >>> >>> that we actually need to reintroduce a [[GetOwnPropertyNames]] >>> />/> internal method / getOwnPropertyNames trap, as the >>> `ownKeys` trap />/doesn't do />/> any invariant checking, >>> which is needed for a reliable Object.isFrozen />/test. />/> >>> />/> Regards, />/> Tom /> >>> >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
