The complaint here is that it's impermeable when it would be preferred not to be. I personally have never yet needed a proxy where nothing else would suffice, so I pretty much have no stake in this discussion.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 11:34 Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 10 nov. 2016 à 15:50, Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > This could be resolved by checking the underlying non-proxy object and > using that one's internal slots instead, in each language-level method that > checks that. > > > Such semantics could make impossible to write impermeable proxies for some > objects, e.g. > > ```js > let s = new Set > let sProxy = new Proxy(s, { /* .... */ }) > Set.prototype.add.call(sProxy, "foo") // will add "foo" to `s`, even if > you were careful enough to intercept `sProxy.add("foo")` > Set.prototype.has.call(sProxy, "bar") // will reveal whether "bar" is in > `s` > ``` > > —Claude >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss