B.3.1 The __proto__ pseudo property

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Sun Apr 21 10:03:42 PDT 2013


Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:22 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>> Hi Axel,
>>
>> Le 21/04/2013 01:37, Axel Rauschmayer a écrit :
>>> __proto__ can be globally switched off by deleting 
>>> Object.prototype.__proto__. I’m assuming that that is useful for 
>>> security-related applications (Caja et al.). But I’m wondering: 
>>> doesn’t that go too far? I’m seeing three ways of using __proto__:
>>>
>>> 1. Read the [[Prototype]] of an object. Already possible via 
>>> Object.getPrototypeOf().
>>> 2. Set the [[Prototype]] of a fresh object created via an object 
>>> literal (i.e., an alternative to the rejected <| operator). Already 
>>> (kind of) possible via Object.create().
>> Also possible with class syntax and the "extends" keyword (with all 
>> the @@create internal semantics).
>>
>>> 3. Mutate the [[Prototype]] of an existing object.
>>>
>>> Globally, I would only want to switch off #3.
>> You can re-enable #1 by re-adding Object.prototype.__proto__ as your 
>> own getter wrapping Object.getPrototypeOf. Or maybe instead of 
>> "delete Object.prototype.__proto__", just do:
>>     Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "__proto__", {set: 
>> undefined});
>
> I still think that Dunder proto should not be exposed at all by 
> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor (or any other reflection)  and that 
> there is no need to leak either a working or always throwing __proto__ 
> setter function into the hands of a ES programmer.

This isn't what we seemed to agree on at past TC39 meetings.

It's also not what the engines trying to converge on ES6 semantics have 
implemented.

/be

>
> My preferred spec for it is at 
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=meetings%3Ameeting_may_21_2013&cache=cache&media=meetings:rev_15_proto_.pdf 
> <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=meetings:meeting_may_21_2013&cache=cache&media=meetings:rev_15_proto_.pdf> 
>
>
> Note that the behavior that some people have expressed a preference 
> for (Dunder proto is observably an accessor property but its set 
> function when retrieved always throws) will also require an exotic 
> Object prototype object to specify so my proposal is not adding any 
> spec. complexity.
>
> As an exercise to the reader, it isn't hard to demonstrate that 
> specified approach could be expressed by using a Proxy to defined 
> Object.prototype (if the proxy handler had access to 
> [[SetInheritance]]).  Since proxy objects are allowed to occur on the 
> [[Prototype]] chain, if an implementation has the mechanism to 
> implement Proxy it will also have the mechanism necessary to implement 
> this definition of  Dunder proto.
>
> Allen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


More information about the es-discuss mailing list