Private symbols vs property attributes

[Mark S. Miller]

I do not understand what is being proposed. When I try to imagine a
proposal starting from what has been said, I have not been able to imagine
something that works. But that's not a criticism. What is this alternate
privacy idea?


On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> Note that the enumerable attribute really only affects for-in enumeration
>> (and Object.keys), neither of which enumerates symbols anyway.  That, means
>> that the enumerable attribute really has has no current meaning for symbol
>> keyed properties.  That means we could probably reinterpret the enumerable
>> attribute as a "private" attribute for such symbol keyed properties.
>>
>
> Groovy.
>
> But the private-as-attribute idea still seems to require an access control
> check, which makes it less secure from an OCap perspective and experience,
> compared to symbols as capabilities.
>
> Wishing for Mark to weigh in here!
>
> /be
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130210/28242620/attachment.html>