On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Modules would be great! But I believe Ihab, due to travel conflicts, has
been preparing to present a module proposal for the March meeting, not the
January one. Ihab?
That is correct -- thanks Mark for noting this. Fwiw,
I updated the alternative proposal. I simplified the implementation
by using opaque nodes for substitutions which reduces the size of the
normative parts substantially and requires that fewer moving parts
function correctly in order for the security properties to be
maintained. This
On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote:
There could be some useful overlap with the http://code.google.com/p/es-lab/wiki/SecureEcmaScript
proposal and modules.
The restricted eval (esp #6) could be the core mechanism of a module
system.
Only if you insist on using eval to turn
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote:
From SecureEcmaScript proposal:
6. The top level binding of this in an evaled Program is not the
global object, but rather a frozen root object containing just the
globals defined in the ES5 spec.
For many current
On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:30 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote:
From SecureEcmaScript proposal:
6. The top level binding of this in an evaled Program is not the
global object, but rather a frozen root object containing just the
On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
That you conflate frozen primordials with isolation is exactly the
kind of over-specification through shortest-path evolution of ES5 to
which I object. It is not going to fly in TC39 among all the browser
vendors. We need to hear from Apple,
6 matches
Mail list logo
