> I'm not sure. I briefly checked the private names proposal > <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:private_name_objects> and I > think the detailed interaction with proxies still has to be fleshed out.
Sure, I'll be happy to work with you on this. > The proposal does mention: "All reflective operations that produce a property > name, when reflecting on a private name, produce the name’s .public property > instead of the name itself." > > Would the same hold for reflective operations that consume property names, > such as handler traps? No, they would require the private name object. The idea here is that you need a reference to the private name to get access to its property. So you can't do any proxy operations on a private property if you don't have the private name object. But the proxy traps do not automatically hand out that reference to a handler trap, in case the trap didn't already have a reference to it (which would constitute a leak). Instead, it hands them the corresponding public key. This way, *if* the trap has a reference to the private key, it can identify which private name is being accessed. Otherwise, the trap can't conclude anything more than "operation X was requested on *some* private name." Dave
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
