On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com>
wrote:
> class DefensivePromise extends Promise {
> constructor(x) {
> super(x);
> if (new.target === DefensivePromise) {
>
// I'm assuming this test is just to be subclass friendly and
allow subclasses to freeze later?
> Object.freeze(this);
> }
> }
> static resolve(x) {
> switch (true) {
> default:
>
// I guess a do { } while(false); would work as well?
> // assuming frozen primordial
> if (x.constructor !== DefensivePromise) break; //just a quick
> exit, doesn't guarantee much
> if (!Object.isFrozen(x)) break;
> If (Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(x, 'then')) break;
> //a more subclass friendly approach would walk x's [[Prototype]]
> chain to ensure that the correct 'then' is inherited from frozen prototypes
> if (Object.getPrototypeOf(x) !== DefensivePromise.prototype)
> break;
> //Assert: x.then === Promise.prototype.then, now and forever
> after
> return x;
> }
> // must be called on a subclass of DefensivePromise, so we don't need
> to enforce the 'then' invariant
> If (x.constructor === this) return x; //in which case a
> constructor check is good enough
>
// ^^ this is a mistake right? I think this line doesn't belong.
> return new this(r => {r(x)});
> }
> }
> Object.freeze(DefensivePromise);
> Object.freeze(DefensivePromise.prototype);
>
It's not clear what the `x.constructor` test is still doing in your
implementation.
But, regardless of the details of our implementations, can we agree that
"tamper proof" promises don't seem to need the [[PromiseConstructor]]
property?
--scott
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
