[+ungar, +tvcutsem]
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark S. Miller wrote: > >> >> IIRC David Ungar's question to Tom was "why not enable proxies to >> mega-program every base-level operation in the language?" I took >> this to mean nothing like a nominal type check could evade >> proxying, in David's vision. Is this plausible in your view? >> >> >> No it is not. It destroys the whole point of branding if passing a brand >> check guarantees nothing. >> > > The counter-argument I inferred from the Q&A (this was in 2011, IIRC you > were there too ;-) I was not there, but I talked to Tom soon afterward. CC'ing Dave and Tom, who's memory of their conversation may also be informative ;) > would answer in two parts: > > 1. Needless-nominal type tests should be replaced by structural-type tests. > > 2. Any remaining brand or trademark test can use object identity or > equivalent unforgeable capability. > > (2) can't be meta-programmed to spoof identity. But it doesn't leave > anything like nominal types as found in many languages lying around as an > attractive nuisance (and how, in Java!). > What I think I remember hearing from Tom is that Dave's main point, and the main argument with Tom, was precisely allowing proxies to intercede on === checks, in which case you wouldn't even have that as a reliable indicator. > > Now plausible? No. > > > /be > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
