2013/1/21 Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> > Andreas Rossberg wrote: > > >> On 21 Jan 2013 17:33, "Tom Van Cutsem" <tomvc...@gmail.com <mailto: >> tomvc...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > So let's revisit the assumption: if a membrane does intercept and wrap >> symbols, then two previously isolated pieces of code can never come to >> share the same private symbol. >> >> I'm not sure I understand what "wrapping a symbol" would actually mean. >> Are you implying that proxies that target a symbol should actually be >> usable _as_ a symbol? >> >> I think Tom meant wrapping as in membrane-wrapping, just as any object > going through a membrane implemented by a proxy would be wrapped. I.e., > symbols are not primitive values, they are objects. So membrane-wrapping a > symbol means making a new symbol that can be mapped back to the original > when flowing back across the membrane. > > We had the old .public idea in play to do something like this. A proxy > would never get access to a private symbol, only its "public key". If it > had been endowed with a map of such back to the private identities, then it > could unwrap. Otherwise, no privacy leak. > > It seems even simpler to make symbols a distinct class of object (special > case for property naming) and otherwise let them be membrane-wrapped. > (Let's defer typeof result value.)
What I meant is that the membrane allocates a new private symbol per private symbol it intercepts, and keeps a mapping between the two. I didn't mean to imply creating a proxy for a symbol. Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
