From: "Dmitry Soshnikov"
> On 17.12.2011 17:21, Herby Vojčík wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > from my point the scenario that:
> >
> >delete lib.toRussianName;
> >
> >then it still:
> >
> >typeof lib.toRussianName; // "function", Trollface ;D
> >
> > is much more acceptable (it happens everyd
Le 17/12/2011 22:37, David Herman a écrit :
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 4:04 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>> I propose to accept that "o[n]" may disclose 'n' if 'o' is a proxy.
> This is just a non-starter. Then you can't use private names as private names.
I have read a lot of code that I have written myself
On Dec 17, 2011, at 4:04 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> I propose to accept that "o[n]" may disclose 'n' if 'o' is a proxy.
This is just a non-starter. Then you can't use private names as private names.
> (One good news is that mostly static analysis
> can assist us in finding where we may disclose '
Le 17/12/2011 19:03, Herby Vojčík a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I saw some concerns about security of name.public and possible leak of
> correspondence between public and its name.
Just to clarify, there is no security issue with '.public'. What I
argued for is that it does not bring more security than be
Errata: I meant "withOUT re-generating it", so it can do the comparision.
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Herby Vojčík
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:03 PM
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: One-time .public
Hello,
I saw some concerns about security of name.public and possible leak of
co
Hello,
I saw some concerns about security of name.public and possible leak of
correspondence between public and its name. Maybe it can be solved by simple
trick (though it will have some implication of certain parts of code). That
is, each time name.public is read, _new_ object will be created
> That's why I proposed first-class phantoms in gist: beasts that typeof
> to "phantom", ToBoolean to false, ToNumber to 0, are wrapping a
> function, [[Call]] calls that function, [[Get]] and [[Prototype]]
> delegates to that function ([[Class]] is questionable) and rest does not
> work ([[Set]]
Le 12/12/2011 16:40, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
> (...)
>
> So in short I would prefer sensible defaults over error-throwing
> missing fundamental traps.
> I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts about this.
In how they are defined and used, virtual handlers are very much like
the previous prox
On 17.12.2011 18:08, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Dmitry, addressing a trap fallback is not a good idea plus the average
JS coder rarely does it ... said that, the moment you are using a
method you already know this exists so you already know the
documentation ( or part of it ) so I don't see much
On 17.12.2011 17:21, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hello,
from my point the scenario that:
delete lib.toRussianName;
then it still:
typeof lib.toRussianName; // "function", Trollface ;D
is much more acceptable (it happens everyday - there are non-writable
properties everywhere),
Yes, good
and about last point, maybe objects that implements noSuchMethod should
return something like "unknown" via typeof ... just saying, and simply to
differentiate these objects from others where __noSuchMethod__ is not in
place.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@g
Dmitry, addressing a trap fallback is not a good idea plus the average JS
coder rarely does it ... said that, the moment you are using a method you
already know this exists so you already know the documentation ( or part of
it ) so I don't see much hurt there.
Moreover, the addressing problem is c
Hello,
I see some discrepancies between dynamic slot-based ES versus concept of
"private per-object state".
The main problem seems to be that I can do this:
(function() { return private(this).secret; }).call(obj);
In that case, I can read (and also write) object's private property at will.
Hi,
Here is a proposal related to the discussion we've had in the other
thread. Gist: https://gist.github.com/1490167
# Introduction
We've seen in [the thread "Are Private name and Weak Map the same
feature? and the Assoc
API"](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-December/018875.h
Hello,
from my point the scenario that:
delete lib.toRussianName;
then it still:
typeof lib.toRussianName; // "function", Trollface ;D
is much more acceptable (it happens everyday - there are non-writable
properties everywhere), than the scenario where I cannot transform
lib.to
Le 17/12/2011 00:24, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:09 PM, David Bruant wrote:
>>> Requiring you to care in order to avoid leaking private names is incredibly
>>> error-prone.
>> So is requiring you to care in order to avoid leaking the public ->
>> private map. It's no
Hi,
Just recently was working with Ruby's code. And found useful again its
(actually from Perl) "approximately equal" operator: =~
The operator is just a sugar for `test' method of RegExp.
if (/ecma/.test("ecmascript")) {
console.log("ECMAScript");
}
is sugared into:
if ("ecmascript" =~ /
On 17.12.2011 9:56, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
if both V8 and SpiderMonkey will follow that logic to trap invoke-only
method, I'll do my best to promote and explain how it works and why
addressing anyhow does not make sense since there is nothing to
address being inexistent.
It was my main th
18 matches
Mail list logo
