On Oct 2, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> Still, we moved private name objects ahead, and rightly so, without adding >> syntax for them. > > That makes sense, as it doesn’t preclude sugar in the future. One thing to > consider: Do private names need to be globally unique or is unique-per-class > enough? The former enables many intriguing other applications, but it might > preclude moving to a nicer syntax later on.
They are objects with unique identity. Objects have identity, primitive types do not. You can forge a string. You can't forge an object. It's a capability. If you mean to suggest two classes C and D, each with a private name P, where C's P === D's P, that is a very bad idea. It's a capability leak, a channel for communicating, attacking, and subverting D from C. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
