Yep. Sorry, editing snafu -- I'd started to call it a non-issue when it
occurred to me that proxy authors would still have to know not to string
coerce keys. No big deal -- proxy authors should know better than to rely on
es5 invariants.
Agreed.
Throw at the point where a unique name
I've been exploring private name objects [1] and I'm a bit confused by a few
things in the proposal, especially the Reflection example...
module Name = require @name;
let o = { };
let name = Name.create(foo);
o[name] = secret!;
...let a = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(o);for (let i = 0; i a.length;
I've been exploring private name objects [1] and I'm a bit confused by a few
things in the proposal, especially the Reflection example...
The page was out of date, sorry. I've updated the page to reflect the agreement
we came to in the last face-to-face, which was that private names should
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:02 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I've been exploring private name objects [1] and I'm a bit confused by a
few things in the proposal, especially the Reflection example...
The page was out of date, sorry. I've updated the page to reflect the
agreement
Understood WRT the forgeability of strings -- I was more concerned with the
potential hazard of toStringing the values of an own-names array, only to
find out you have several keys with the string value undefined. Sure you're
doing it wrong, but string keys are an es5 invariant -- it's
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Understood WRT the forgeability of strings -- I was more concerned with
the potential hazard of toStringing the values of an own-names array, only
to find out you have several keys with the string value undefined. Sure
6 matches
Mail list logo
