On 10/01/10 18:49, Brendan Eich wrote:
It's not clear what private names are trying to do well. If they want
to provide privacy, they can't be visible to proxies. If they want to
provide extension without collision (i.e. namespacing), they should be
visible to Object.keys, enumeration, etc.
Waldemar, thanks for the great notes. One quick comment on the binary data
notes:
int64's: Open issue. Reference semantics are annoying, but what's a
realistic alternative?
int128's? Those come up increasingly often in SSE programming.
We briefly discussed bignums as a realistic
Here are my raw notes from our second day.
Waldemar
Catch guard proposal, resurrected from 1998. Well-liked all around.
Proposed to move into Harmony if there are no objections by the next
meeting.
MarkM speculating: Could the if syntax be extended to pattern
matching? Not easily.
On Oct 1, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Here are my raw notes from our second day.
Thanks again for taking these. Best tc39 note taker. ever. still.
Unique names
Question: In what ways does this differ from weak tables?
- A client can look up a property p using a[p] without
A proxy having the right to get at an object's private field names is
equivalent to a proxy having the right to obtain all weak maps for
which the object is the key. The security implications are the same.
If a proxy can do a faithful membrane without one of these rights, it
can do a
5 matches
Mail list logo
