On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> It's possible Reflect.construct has introduced a security hole that was
> not present before the recent instantiation reform. Hopefully Mark can
> comment more.
>
Note that, even without `Reflect.construct`:
```
x = new C(); // C some
It's possible Reflect.construct has introduced a security hole that was not
present before the recent instantiation reform. Hopefully Mark can comment more.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM -0700, "C. Scott Ananian"
mailto:ecmascr...@cscott.net>> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Kevi
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think I'd rather see `Promise.resolve` changed to use `this.constructor`
>> instead of `this.[[PromiseConstructor]]`, like every other Promise-related
>> method. Can someone who feels strongly otherwise give me the use case for
>> `[[Promis
>
> I think I'd rather see `Promise.resolve` changed to use `this.constructor`
> instead of `this.[[PromiseConstructor]]`, like every other Promise-related
> method. Can someone who feels strongly otherwise give me the use case for
> `[[PromiseConstructor]]` existing?
>
I'll give it a shot.
"Pro
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> There needs to be an unforgable brand property such that only objects
> created with `new XPromise()` pass `XPromise.resolve`. It is not a use case
> to allow building an object ES5 style in pieces to pass the brand check.
> Such objects
Inadvertently moved discussion off-list; requoting on list:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of C.
> Scott Ananian
>
> > But in the code given previously, I've used `Object.setPrototypeOf` to
> effective
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of C. Scott
Ananian
> But in the code given previously, I've used `Object.setPrototypeOf` to
> effectively change the type of the object -- but [[PromiseConstructor]]
> doesn't follow along.
That is exactly the kind of tamperin
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:31 AM, C. Scott Ananian
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you should do the same with Promise methods but then you'll see
>> overall a quite consistent performance drop when using all these subcl
Replies interspersed below
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James Burke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
>
>> Indeed, there is no built-in facility for bundling since as explained
>> in this thread that will actually slow down your performance, and there’s
>> n
What I do is send the files over in as TAR archives, with mod_deflate
turned on (they basically turn into .tar.gz files at that point). It's
reasonably fast, even though I'm processing thirty megabytes of data this
way (yay for typed arrays). I highly recommend it.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:57
Thanks! Had completely missed that GH repo's existence. :)
Cool that this is moving forward!
Thanks to Sebastian for the explanation as well!
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:46 Michael Ficarra
wrote:
> See https://github.com/tc39/ecma262. This proposal is currently at stage
> one. To find out more abou
11 matches
Mail list logo
