On 17 December 2012 13:01, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossb...@google.com> wrote: >> I see the following preferable solutions to deal with DOM features violating >> ES: >> >> 1. Lobby to fix the DOM and make it conform to ES instead of the other >> way round. Alex Russell has argued for this repeatedly. >> >> 2. Where we can't (sadly, probably most cases), and are forced to >> codify existing DOM hacks in ES, isolate these hacks as much as >> possible. Specifically, in the current case, define them as specifics >> of the global object (the global object is a lost cause anyway). > > In general, I might be fine with that approach. But because of direct > proxies, it doesn't work for invariant enforcement. Direct proxies can > use the presence of a single invariant-violating object to create any > number of other invariant-violating objects.
Yes, but is that a different problem than the global object itself? Why would you expect anything else? And how would introducing an extra set of internal attributes help? Of course, I personally wouldn't mind being radical and simply forbid proxying the global object altogether. But I assume that you are going to say that there are important use cases. :) /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
