Yes. See < https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-July/032339.html> for more along these lines.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvids...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > This seems to neatly separate concerns, but Arv pointed out that for some > > proxy cases it won't work. I forget what he said exactly, though. Cc'ing > > him. > > We went through the exercise of only having private symbols but it > lead to some issues. Here is one that we identified. > > Lets assume we use a private symbol for the @@iterator. The symbol can > still be checked because anyone that has access to the right module > can get it. It is also important that a proxy for an object, O, is not > invoked when you do O[privateSymbol]. This means that it is not > possible to create an iterable proxy object, since no trap on the > proxy is invoked. > > Marks' relationship proposal tries to solve the issue of private > symbols and proxies, by inverting the relationship, so that x[r] > invokes a method on r, therefore allowing you to create a proxy for r. > However, for the built-in meta protocol symbols, you cannot replace > them with a proxy to the symbol, since the symbol is already hard > coded to use the @@iterator symbol. > > Therefore, we need something like public symbols for the meta operations. > > -- > erik > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
