On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On the climbing the meta, I'd like to understand how this might > interact with other proposals. > > get - already can execute arbitrary code due to getters > set - already can execute arbitrary code due to setters > in - cannot for non host objects > delete - cannot for non host objects > enumerate - cannot for non host objects > By the currently proposed taxonomy at < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proxies#interaction_of_external_methods_and_proxies>, all the above are base-level operations. The list at < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proxies#climbing_the_meta_ladder> explains that all the above can cause user code to execute whereas the last three, as you point out, currently cannot. > hasOwnProperty - cannot for non host objects > > Incidentally, is Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty(myProxy) > O(myProxyHandler.keys().length) for proxies? This seems bad since a > for (in) loop that filters out non-own properties would be O(n**2) on > top of the loop body. > By the current taxonomy, Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty(myProxy) is meta-level and always returns false on a trapping proxy, revealing that it does not actually have any own properties. -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
