I think it is a good idea, but maybe we need to think about what the final syntax would be. About segregation, if the library changes the signature, then they'll have the whole source object, right? Maybe for the mentioned security the user would need to opt in:
```js theFunction(&obj.foo, &obj.bar); ``` would allow the function to destructure, and only destructure, by reference of those given properties, for example. Then the contract can not silently change from secure to insecure. #!/JoePea On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:47 AM Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > to expand further: you *could* access such reference via `arguments[0]`, but > *that* won't be possible with arrow functions, as example, so that > `({&reactive}, maybe) => { if (maybe) reactive = true; }` is another pattern > that doesn't need the whole object around, or to be propagated, when you can > pass it via `{&reactive}` to anything else, covering then the `arguments` > point too. > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:44 PM Andrea Giammarchi > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > the proposal is just a debatable syntax sugar for something we already can >> > do >> >> that's basically the entirety of the syntax sugar proposals since ES2015, >> right? also proxy and globalThis are *really* unrelated to this, imho, while >> leaking objects all over down the pipe is my major concern, something this >> proposal avoids, as no code will have a reference to the entirety of the >> source object, they'll deal with a known property name passed by reference, >> incapable of changing anything else in the source object ... so it's rather >> a signal, than a convention. >> >> this means composability, different classes/prototypes passed as arguments, >> and the certainty nothing can inspect, change, or deal, with the source, >> which means increased security, as opposite to pass instances and whole >> objects references around. >> >> You have a reference to a property, you don't see its source. >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:19 PM Augusto Moura <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> > ```js >>> > function stuff(source, extra) { >>> > const {value, method} = source; >>> > >>> > if (condition) >>> > method.call(source); >>> > >>> > if (value === extra) >>> > source.value = 'no more'; >>> > } >>> > ``` >>> >>> I mean, in this case you can skip destructuring altogether, having a one >>> way and way only of value indirection is a Pretty Good Thing™ (even though >>> we already have proxys, globalThis and other indirection shenanigans), I >>> never felt annoyed of just using `source.value` or `source.method()` >>> instead of `value` and `method()`, again the proposal is just a debatable >>> syntax sugar for something we already can do. I wonder if we could ever do >>> the reference thingy in user-land with variable level decorators, if it >>> ever gets discussed again in the meetings. Would be still kinda fishy to >>> propose and implement > > _______________________________________________ > 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
