Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Sat Jan 28 21:00:45 PST 2012
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
> I don't think we would ever want to expose __proto__ as an accessor
> property on Object.prototype as that would expose set/get functions that
> would also have the capabilities of __proto__ without being associated
> with that special property.
As long as they are restricted to objects from their frame of origin, I
don't see much wrong with it. Again, I have come to prefer Brendan's
non-accessor approach, but I don't see any strong reason to prefer one over
the other. From a SES security POV the difference matters not at all, since
the first thing the SES initialization would do in such a frame is to
delete __proto__ anyway.
> I can easily write a specification for __proto__ that essentially has the
> SpiderMonkey observable behavior (including exposing a data property on
> object prototype) without mandating the observable use of accessor
> properties or any other specific implementation mechanism. How you go
> about invisibly implementing it would be up to you. Since most
> implementations already seem to have special mechanism for giving "magic"
> behavior to certain properties I would expect them to use some of those
> mechanisms here.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss