David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > Brendan Eich wrote: >> 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 >>>>> globals defined in the ES5 spec. >>>> For many current applications, the frozen |this| object is not necessary >>>> or desirable in global code. The essential characteristic of modules, >>>> isolation for each module's "inside" from unimported effects of other >>>> modules, does not necessarily mean no mutation of primordial objects. >>> On the contrary, it does necessarily mean that. If you can mutate >>> primordial objects, then there is no isolation of any module. There >>> may be a reduction in the possibilities for accidental interference >>> between modules, but that should be distinguished from isolation. >> >> Who said primordial objects are shared between modules? > > Having separate copies of primordial objects for each module is not > sufficient to ensure isolation. If one module has access to some object > obj of another, it can also get access to that object's prototype chain > using Object.getPrototypeOf(obj), or obj.constructor.prototype.
Correction: obj.constructor[.prototype] gives access to the constructor chain. But that doesn't really affect my argument, if constructors are mutable. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
