Why we need to clean up __proto__
John J Barton
johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com
Wed Dec 28 18:25:07 PST 2011
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:59 PM, John J Barton <
> johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de>wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 17:13 , John J Barton wrote:
>>> Doesn't Object.keys() solve this problem?
>>> For getting elements, yes. For setting, the problem with the illegal own
>>> property name "__proto__" remains.
>> Doesn't this same problem face any property of an object-as-dictionary
>> which is also a property needed for the dictionary to work properly? So
>> fixing __proto__ is not important, it's inadequate?
> Good uses of objects-as-stringmaps use the objects *only* as stringmaps.
> Aside from the use of "hasOwnProperty" as an instance method in Crock's
> original example, which he elsewhere shows how to correct, Crock's
> "registry" is used correctly. Together with the proposed __proto__ as
> accessor behavior, Crock's code would actually be correct (though I'd still
> advise using an abstraction like StringMap that can encapsulate such
> hazards and present a simple interface).
Ok, but IMO, our system needs a built-in StringMap more than it needs to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss