On 10 February 2013 19:40, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > How does this interact with Proxies[1]? I know the answer probably starts > with "whitelist", but let's spell it out in this context, and test it > against the 8 membrane transparency cases previously discussed. If there are > good answers for all of these, and if we can reuse enumerable: for this > purpose as Brendan suggests, then I'm guardedly positive. I do not want to > introduce a new attribute.
I must have missed the discussion of the "8 membrane transparency cases". Do you have a pointer? I'm fine with reusing 'enumerable'. Finally, a useful function for that attribute. :) /Andreas > [1] For now, I agree that the proxies we should examine are direct proxies. > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:30 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Le 10/02/2013 17:16, Mark S. Miller a écrit : >> >>> I do not understand what is being proposed. When I try to imagine a >>> proposal starting from what has been said, I have not been able to imagine >>> something that works. But that's not a criticism. What is this alternate >>> privacy idea? >> >> My understanding is: >> * there is only one kind of symbol >> * whether the symbol is reflected by Object.getOwnPropertyNames and the >> likes is controlled by a 'private' attribute in property descriptors. >> >> // unique constructor, no boolean since there is only one kind of >> symbol >> var s = new Symbol(); >> var o = {}, o2 = {}; >> >> Object.defineProperty(o, s, {value: 12, private: true}); >> assert(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(o).length === 0) >> assert(o[s] === 12); >> o[s] = 31; >> assert(o[s] === 31); >> >> Object.defineProperty(o2, s, {value: 7, private: false}); >> assert(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(o)[0] === s); >> assert(o2[s] === 7); >> o2[s] = 13; >> assert(o2[s] === 13); >> >> Pending question: >> var o3 = {}; >> o3[s] = 62; >> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(o3, s).private // true or false? >> >> Since private:false implies symbol sharing through >> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor, I think private:true should be favored to >> force people to be explicit (see my reply to Brendan) >> >> The main difference with the current proposal is that privacy isn't an >> inherent characteristic of the symbol, but related to how it's been >> configured on the different objects it's been used on. >> >> Was the above one of the things you imagined? If yes, why doesn't it work? >> >> David >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > -- > Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain > > Cheers, > --MarkM > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
