well, Proxy can be a diabolic beast ```js Object.setPrototypeOf( Object.prototype, new Proxy(Object.prototype, evilPlan) ) ```
having no way to understand if an object is a Proxy looks like a footgun to me in the long term, for libraries, and "code alchemists" You indeed wrote that different Array methods need to know if there's a Proxy in there ... if dev cannot know the same via code they are unable again to subclass properly or replicate native behaviors behind magic internal checks. If there is a way and I'm missing it, then it's OK Regards On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-11-12 23:49 GMT+01:00 Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> > : > >> If Array.isArray should fail for non "pure" Arrays, can we have a >> Proxy.isProxy that never fails with proxies ? >> > > We ruled out `Proxy.isProxy` very early on in the design. It's > antithetical to the desire of keeping proxies transparent. In general, we > want to discourage type checks like you just wrote. > > If you're getting handed an object you don't trust and need very strong > guarantees on its behavior, you'll need to make a copy. This is true > regardless of proxies. In your example, even if the array is genuine, there > may be some pointer alias to the array that can change the array at a later > time. > > Regards, > Tom >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
