Le 22/03/2013 19:33, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com
mailto:vitteayme...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I remember when I looked at it, there was a getfreevar
function or something like this parsing the code (or I
[+google-caja-discuss]
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 22/03/2013 19:33, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com
wrote:
As far as I remember when I looked at it, there was a
As far as I remember when I looked at it, there was a getfreevar
function or something like this parsing the code (or I misunderstood,
see [1] but don't read the proposal, it's wrong, even if I don't totally
give up with the concept).
But anyway, since it will change, does it exist an
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.comwrote:
As far as I remember when I looked at it, there was a getfreevar
function or something like this parsing the code (or I misunderstood, see
[1] but don't read the proposal, it's wrong, even if I don't totally give
up
yes, SES, the non real world out there, needs __proto__ ... shenanigans all
over the world because of '__proto__' ain't important.
Thanks to be clear on it
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Your writing is unclear and overlong, and full of unjustified
If against all odds, all code everywhere *did* magically drop __proto__
in favor of Object.setPrototypeOf, then SES and similar subsets would be
unable to protect secure code from ambient Object.setPrototypeOf usage
from the insecure side on the secure side's objects, unless
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
yes, SES, the non real world out there, needs __proto__ ...
shenanigans all over the world because of '__proto__' ain't important.
SES is deployed on major Google properties. I recall also Yahoo! but not
sure if still up.
I think again you are out of line. Am I
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:38 AM, François REMY
francois.remy@outlook.com wrote:
Phasing out failed experiments *is* possible. I don't think a browser that
doesn't support blink or marquee or even document.layers would have a
lot of problems to view the web as it's now, yet I remember a
No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
/be
Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 11:39 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
yes, SES, the non real world out there, needs __proto__ ...
On 3/21/2013 1:57 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
/be
Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 11:39 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
yes, SES, the non real
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Brandon Benvie bben...@mozilla.comwrote:
On 3/21/2013 1:57 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
Thanks.
If I understand correctly, this
Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 1:57 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
First, it doesn't matter: my point about SES being deployed in the real
world stands, whether SES
Correction:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Kevin Reid kpr...@google.com wrote:
Yes. SES requires 'with' as a means to hook into 'global' variable reads
and writes; without it, it is impossible
without performing a parse and scope analysis of the code to be evaluated
to emulate the
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Your writing is unclear and overlong, and full of unjustified airs of
grievance -- please work on it.
I'll do more than that, I publicly and officially apologies for my writing
plus I will step back from this ML for an
otherwhise by the TC39 members
and I doubt they’re willing to revert their decision.
De : Andrea Giammarchi
Envoyé : 18 mars 2013 17:08
À : Nathan Wall
Cc : es-discuss@mozilla.org
Objet : Re: Mutable Proto
I would like to see Object.setPrototypeOf(object, proto) too
: Re: Mutable Proto
I would like to see Object.setPrototypeOf(object, proto) too and a
disappeared __proto__ 'till now breaking too much.
It would be much easier to implement all shenanigans via
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, '__proto__', {whatever}); rather
than fix
Mariusz Nowak wrote:
+1!
It would be great if someone will explain in detail why
Object.setPrototypeOf is no go.
We've been over this many times, e.g. at
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-May/022904.html
To recap,
1. __proto__ is out in the field, a de-facto standard on
I didn't get a direct response to my question about mutating proto on objects
which don't inherit from Object.prototype, but I'm inferring from [1] that it
won't be possible. I find this unfortunate, but I realize this issue has seen
a lot of discussion in the past and there are reasons for
Le 20/03/2013 16:36, Nathan Wall a écrit :
I didn't get a direct response to my question about mutating proto on objects
which don't inherit from Object.prototype, but I'm inferring from [1] that it
won't be possible. I find this unfortunate, but I realize this issue has seen
a lot of
Le 20/03/2013 16:15, Brendan Eich a écrit :
To recap,
1. __proto__ is out in the field, a de-facto standard on mobile, and
not going away. Adding another API doesn't help, it hurts.
2. SES and other secure subsets want same-frame (global object,
realm) mashups of code that may use __proto__
I don't understand where is the problem ... any library that uses __proto__
can and should be updated with a shim waiting for next version of JS to
support it.
Object.setPrototypeOf = function (object, proto) {
object.__proto__ = proto;
return object;
};
That does not look bad at all to me,
never cared about IE much on mobile and I do not care about 100% or
__proto__ support ... there is 100% of Object.prototype pollution support
since ever and everybody knows that is a bad technique, specially done
through direct property rather than through a descriptor.
What is the point then ?
but for which I do want to
have mutable proto.
Testing in Firefox Nightly I found this workaround:
var x = { }, y = { foo: 'bar' };
x.__proto__ = y;
console.log(1, x.foo);
// = 1 'bar'
x.__proto__ = null;
console.log(2, x.foo);
// = 2 undefined
x.__proto__ = y
because
I have objects which I don't want to inherit from Object.prototype but for
which I do want to have mutable proto.
Testing in Firefox Nightly I found this workaround:
var x = { }, y = { foo: 'bar' };
x.__proto__ = y;
console.log(1, x.foo);
// = 1 'bar'
x.__proto__
I certainly agree, but it has been decided otherwhise by the TC39 members and I
doubt they’re willing to revert their decision.
De : Andrea Giammarchi
Envoyé : 18 mars 2013 17:08
À : Nathan Wall
Cc : es-discuss@mozilla.org
Objet : Re: Mutable Proto
I would like to see
25 matches
Mail list logo
