On Mar 10, 12:26 am, cc <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-03-09 22:12, Dave Land wrote: > > > > > On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Dave Land wrote: > > >> The "anonymous function wrapper" ensures that the script's > >> identifiers don't collide with identifiers in JavaScript in the page > >> itself. All of the script's identifiers exist only within the > >> anonymous function, so they can't "leak out" into the page, or vice > >> versa � the script's identifiers are all local to the script. > > > And so forth... > > > I thought I could find where it is documented that this is an archaic > > way of writing GM scripts, but I can't find it now. > > > I wonder if someone can explain to us: does GM automatically wrap user > > scripts in an anonymous function (or the equivalent) to gain the > > security and scoping benefits I named above? Is it overkill to add the > > anon function in your own user scripts? > > Yes, it is. Seehttp://wiki.greasespot.net/Metadata_Block#.40unwrap > (Actually, GM wraps *twice* -- once with an anonymous function, for > compatibility and reliability, and once with evalInSandbox, for > security. This last wrapping is what's responsible for unsafeWindow and > friends, or more accurately for why there's a distinction possible > between unsafeWindow and window.) > > -- > cc | pseudonymous |<http://carlclark.mp/>
Sounds good. If GM double-wraps my code, I don' really have to wrap it myself :) Thank you! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
