On Nov 2, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
> [...] If the reasons for removing Proxy.isProxy are valid then we should be
> providing such a backdoor.
>
> not?
>
shouldn't
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> [...] If the reasons for removing Proxy.isProxy are valid then we should
> be providing such a backdoor.
>
not?
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 6:05 PM, David Bruant wrote:
>
>> Le 02/11/2013 01:08, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
>>> On 11/1/2013 4:59 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> In the spec for Object.prototype.toS
Le 02/11/2013 03:13, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
On Nov 1, 2013, at 6:05 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I'm not sure about proxy returning "Proxy" as tag name. Is that a good idea?
Brand feels like something that could safely transparently cross proxies.
There is a note on in the ES6 draft on that Pr
> What are the use cases for things like 'isGenerator'. When and why would
you need to know that an object upon which you are going to invoke the
Iterator interface was/wasn't implemented by a generator.
[`co`][1] is a library similar to Task.js that allows you to use ES6
generators as async / aw
On 11/1/2013 8:54 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This just reminds me how cold I still am on the fact that you can't easily
one-off Proxy anything that's not a plain Object, Array, or Function because of
the lack of an invoke trap and every other type of built-in has private
state... but I suppo
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> On 11/1/2013 7:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> Or we could simply not special case Proxy exotic objects and then Proxies
>> would be handled like any other object, the value of the objects
>> @@toStringTag property would be accessed and use
On 11/1/2013 7:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Or we could simply not special case Proxy exotic objects and then Proxies would
be handled like any other object, the value of the objects @@toStringTag
property would be accessed and used to compose the toString result.
Which would result in thi
On Nov 1, 2013, at 6:05 PM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 02/11/2013 01:08, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
>> On 11/1/2013 4:59 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In the spec for Object.prototype.toString:
'If tag is any of "Arguments", "Array", "Boolea
Le 02/11/2013 01:08, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
On 11/1/2013 4:59 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In the spec for Object.prototype.toString:
'If tag is any of "Arguments", "Array", "Boolean", "Date", "Error",
"Function", "Number", "RegExp", or "String" and
On 11/1/2013 4:59 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In the spec for Object.prototype.toString:
'If tag is any of "Arguments", "Array", "Boolean", "Date", "Error",
"Function", "Number", "RegExp", or "String" and SameValue(tag,
builtinTag) is false, then let
On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In the spec for Object.prototype.toString:
'If tag is any of "Arguments", "Array", "Boolean", "Date", "Error",
"Function", "Number", "RegExp", or "String" and SameValue(tag,
builtinTag) is false, then let tag be the string value "~"
concatenated wit
I just read
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-object.prototype.tostring
and
agree that it continues to preserve the brand checks that were reliable in
ES5.
Cool! Thanks!
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> On 11/1/2013 4:29 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On 11/1/2013 4:29 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Hi Allen, perhaps I misunderstood. But I thought that as of ES6,
O.p.toString can't be used for reliable brand checking of anything,
including legacy ES<=5 built-ins. Not so? How would I do such a check
of a legacy built-in in ES6?
In the spec for O
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> > Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy,
> etc etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a
> `Map` and a `WeakMap` withou
On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> For the ES6 builtin types, I have no idea.
>
Most branded ES6 built-ins have non-destructive brand-checking methods that
call be used to perform brand checks.
For example,
function isMap(obj) {
try {Map.prototype.size.call(obj); retu
On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy, etc
> etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a `Map` and
> a `WeakMap` without passing through the branding check ?
>
> That's a very good
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:relationships
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> For the ES6 builtin types, I have no idea.
>
> For abstractions you define yourself, your abstraction can brand its
> objects using an encapsulated WeakSet or WeakMap. This will
For the ES6 builtin types, I have no idea.
For abstractions you define yourself, your abstraction can brand its
objects using an encapsulated WeakSet or WeakMap. This will work, but with
two problems:
* Awkward syntax until more directly supported by ES7 relationships.
* Sucky performance until
Thanks Mark,
so how is anyone supposed to be sure about or check a Brand in ES6 then?
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy,
> etc etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a
> `Map` and a `WeakMap` without passing through the branding
Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy,
etc etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a
`Map` and a `WeakMap` without passing through the branding check ?
That's a very good example indeed, `'has' in obj` or `'set' in obj` does
not grant you
On Nov 1, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
>> [isSpecialString]() {return isSpecialString in this};
>
> So this is basically what we have for DOM objects right now. And what
> we're asking for is having this elevated to la
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> [isSpecialString]() {return isSpecialString in this};
So this is basically what we have for DOM objects right now. And what
we're asking for is having this elevated to language-supported
construct. Be it in the form of a method or someth
I have no idea who is doing that and why but yes, in that case I would
never have used instanceof so my example is still valid as use case itself.
Cheers
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> wrote:
>
> also, your reviver woul
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> also, your reviver would receive objects from the realm I am checking with
> that code ... so your reviver will receive object from the **expected** realm
> ... just to clarify, for future readers.
>
I don’t understand what you’re sayin
also, your reviver would receive objects from the realm I am checking with
that code ... so your reviver will receive object from the **expected**
realm ... just to clarify, for future readers.
Still all ears listening to that case I've never, honestly, considered!
Thanks
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 a
Sure, so Allen asked me a real case to show, and I've done it. Now you
please show me a real case when you pass a revival function to `JSON.parse`
that is from another realm, explaining why, as I've done for mine, thanks.
Best Regards
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> On
On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> Allen, in which place on current known universe, when you parse a
> JSON.string, your reviver function receives objects from another realm,
> exactly?
Please try to keep the discourse polite.
That said this is fairly trivial
function r
Allen, in which place on current known universe, when you parse a
JSON.string, your reviver function receives objects from another realm,
exactly?
That logic is bypassing and full-satisfying JSON.parse revival expectations
returning object later on checked as instanceof String in order to
differen
On Oct 31, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> Sorry, secure was actually "reliable", as being secure about the type, not
> about security itself.
>
> A case where I do use instanceof is, example, with new String to easily
> decide later on what to do with such object that should not
Sorry, secure was actually "reliable", as being secure about the type, not
about security itself.
A case where I do use instanceof is, example, with new String to easily
decide later on what to do with such object that should not be treated as
such.
The script does resolve circular dependencies b
On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> I think the question is legit and this is a weak check
>
> `'throw' in possibleGenerator`
>
> specially if you have Dictionary like objects around ...
And why would such an object be passed into a context where you expect to have
a gener
I think the question is legit and this is a weak check
`'throw' in possibleGenerator`
specially if you have Dictionary like objects around ...
'length' in object does not tell you much, does it?
`Object.prototype.toString` is abused all over client/server
libraries/utilities since ducks sometim
On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 8:50 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>> I'm not sure it's worth making it work for jQuery. This is trying to make a
>> good use of same-origin multi-global which shouldn't exist in the first
>> place. Keeping same-origin access as it is
On 10/31/2013 8:50 AM, David Bruant wrote:
I'm not sure it's worth making it work for jQuery. This is trying to
make a good use of same-origin multi-global which shouldn't exist in
the first place. Keeping same-origin access as it is and encouraging
people to add @sandbox even on same-origin if
Le 31/10/2013 16:38, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
This keeps coming up. Last instance:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/base/ObjectWrapper.jsm#16
We have it for Array using Array.isArray().
Array.isArray is not at all equivalent to instanceof. Not even related.
Object.create
This keeps coming up. Last instance:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/base/ObjectWrapper.jsm#16
We have it for Array using Array.isArray(). It is unclear why the
arguments for arrays not apply to other types of objects, such as
array buffers, nodes, blobs, files, etc.
We could in
38 matches
Mail list logo
