And actually --
On 2013/06/12 16:35:30, ihab.awad wrote:
1. We'd need to do the right thing with atLeastFreeVarNames given an
identifier
that has a Unicode escape sequence. We would need to put into the
scope object
of our defensive "with () { ... }", not a property name with a
backslash-u, but
a property name with an actual Unicode value in it.
By that logic alone, atLeastFreeVarNames as currently written would fail
unsafe, because it would create a property name with a backslash-u in
it. We'd have to rewrite atLeastFreeVarNames to actually parse and
interpret the backslash-u sequences in the candidate identifiers it
finds, before setting them as properties on the scope object of the
defensive "with() { ... }".
https://codereview.appspot.com/10205043/
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Caja Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
