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
fix __proto__.

jjb


>
>
> --
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20111228/8c90daf2/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list