As quick parenthesis, I do hope the potentially evil code I've written will be possible in the future, as universal solution to `undefined is not defined` error in development code.
evil is never necessarily evil, going with "prohibitionism" won't make anyone happy. About `Array.isArray` though, I believe devs expect the Proxy to be transparent, but again, for development or library sake, I expect developers to be able to tell if there is some cellophane around their objects. Array.isArray(proxied) whould be true if the proxied object isArray, but please consider give developers a way to understand if there is a proxy around. It won't be a good looking thing, but as it's needed internally, it might be needed out there too. Regards On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:48 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > The best defense is Object.freeze(Object.prototype); > No application worth considering needs to arbitrarily modify > Object.prototype at an arbitrary point in time (or someone should bring a > use case for discussion). It usually shouldn't and even if it does, it > should do it at startup and freeze it afterwards. > > Le 13/11/2014 12:25, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit : > > well, Proxy can be a diabolic beast > > ```js > Object.setPrototypeOf( > Object.prototype, > new Proxy(Object.prototype, evilPlan) > ) > ``` > > having no way to understand if an object is a Proxy looks like a footgun > to me in the long term, for libraries, and "code alchemists" > > You're giving guns to people and try to evaluate how to defend from them. > Consider not letting guns around the rooms ;-) > > David > > You indeed wrote that different Array methods need to know if there's a > Proxy in there ... if dev cannot know the same via code they are unable > again to subclass properly or replicate native behaviors behind magic > internal checks. > > If there is a way and I'm missing it, then it's OK > > Regards > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Tom Van Cutsem <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 2014-11-12 23:49 GMT+01:00 Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected] >> >: >> >>> If Array.isArray should fail for non "pure" Arrays, can we have a >>> Proxy.isProxy that never fails with proxies ? >>> >> >> We ruled out `Proxy.isProxy` very early on in the design. It's >> antithetical to the desire of keeping proxies transparent. In general, we >> want to discourage type checks like you just wrote. >> >> If you're getting handed an object you don't trust and need very strong >> guarantees on its behavior, you'll need to make a copy. This is true >> regardless of proxies. In your example, even if the array is genuine, there >> may be some pointer alias to the array that can change the array at a later >> time. >> >> Regards, >> Tom >> > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
