On Apr 21, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:22 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>>> Hi Axel,
>>>
>>> Le 21/04/2013 01:37, Axel Rauschmayer a écrit :
>>>> __proto__ can be globally switched off by deleting
>>>> Object.prototype.__proto__. I’m assuming that that is useful for
>>>> security-related applications (Caja et al.). But I’m wondering: doesn’t
>>>> that go too far? I’m seeing three ways of using __proto__:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Read the [[Prototype]] of an object. Already possible via
>>>> Object.getPrototypeOf().
>>>> 2. Set the [[Prototype]] of a fresh object created via an object literal
>>>> (i.e., an alternative to the rejected <| operator). Already (kind of)
>>>> possible via Object.create().
>>> Also possible with class syntax and the "extends" keyword (with all the
>>> @@create internal semantics).
>>>
>>>> 3. Mutate the [[Prototype]] of an existing object.
>>>>
>>>> Globally, I would only want to switch off #3.
>>> You can re-enable #1 by re-adding Object.prototype.__proto__ as your own
>>> getter wrapping Object.getPrototypeOf. Or maybe instead of "delete
>>> Object.prototype.__proto__", just do:
>>> Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "__proto__", {set: undefined});
>>
>> I still think that Dunder proto should not be exposed at all by
>> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor (or any other reflection) and that there is
>> no need to leak either a working or always throwing __proto__ setter
>> function into the hands of a ES programmer.
>
> This isn't what we seemed to agree on at past TC39 meetings.
>
> It's also not what the engines trying to converge on ES6 semantics have
> implemented.
It's not clear to me, yet what convergence we actually have.
Regardless, it's only observable via
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Object.prototype, "__proto__") which in my
proposal returns undefined when Dunder proto is active and in other proposals
returns a function that when evaluated throws something. The semantics of
Dunder proto that have been discussed isn't just that of an accessor property
and can't be purely implemented as such so I no value in trying to masquerade
it as an accessor for getOwnPropertyDescriptor. Returning get/set functions
that always throws is just adding complexity that delivers no value.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
