On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Given that ES6 doesn't have a public Realm API it really doesn't make much
difference.
Why not? Currently HTML overrides to make the existing setup work...
That's the whole reason we wanted to change this in the
Is there a detailed rationale for this somewhere? Making typical
applications pay the cost here for a specific security scenario seems
really bizarre to me. Clearing standard library data structures is an
incredibly common operation. If you want to ensure that someone can't
clear the map/set,
The root of the issue, is that WeakMaps are thought as a tool for two unrelated
use cases. Quoting [1]:
(...) WeakMaps were motivate[d] by two distinct use cases. Soft fields and
object-keyed caches.
Now, in short, for the soft fields use case, a `.clear()` method is unwanted,
but for the
On Nov 26, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
The root of the issue, is that WeakMaps are thought as a tool for two
unrelated use cases. Quoting [1]:
(...) WeakMaps were motivate[d] by two distinct use cases. Soft fields and
object-keyed caches.
Now, in short, for the soft
Agreed, and i believe the only real reason would be the inability to polyfill
it properly, in order to discourage its usage.
If this is why, it doesn't justify its drop, imo
-Original Message-
From: Katelyn Gadd k...@luminance.org
Sent: 26/11/2014 17:33
To: es-discuss
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Katelyn Gadd k...@luminance.org wrote:
Is there a detailed rationale for this somewhere?
It is a combination of three issues.
1. The security issue.
2. The implementation issue.
3. The ES process issue.
The implementation issue is that the use cases for
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
The root of the issue, is that WeakMaps are thought as a tool for two
unrelated use cases. Quoting [1]:
(...) WeakMaps were motivate[d] by two distinct use
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
The root of the issue, is that WeakMaps are thought as a tool for two
unrelated use
On Nov 26, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
The root of the issue, is
The detailed explanations are helpful for understanding this, at least
when it comes to WeakMap. Thanks. I was not aware that clear() was a
tenative addition - MDN
(https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/WeakMap)
lists it as available in all the major
Katelyn Gadd wrote:
However: Does this mean that if I implement clear myself by creating
new WeakMaps, i'm inadvertently doing horrible things to the GC?
Assume yes (only defensive assumption). What goes wrong?
Sorry if I missed it: what is your .clear use case, in example code?
/be
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Katelyn Gadd k...@luminance.org wrote:
The detailed explanations are helpful for understanding this, at least
when it comes to WeakMap. Thanks. I was not aware that clear() was a
tenative addition - MDN
12 matches
Mail list logo
