Private Slots

Brandon Benvie brandon at brandonbenvie.com
Mon Jan 14 08:49:30 PST 2013


I did miss a beat now, reading back. Admittedly, if private symbol do
remain mutable as was indicated in the other thread, this certainly
represents a different beast.

On Monday, January 14, 2013, Kevin Smith wrote:

>
>
>> No boilerplate, no additional runtime costs than what's necessary.
>
>
> Arguably, all of those examples could be addressed by unique symbols.
>  Where is the need for strong runtime enforcement of encapsulation?
>
>
>>
>>  I would personally like to see answers to the following questions:
>>>
>>> - Do private slots enable applications that would otherwise be
>>> impossible?
>>>
>> I guess applications where you need memory for your actual content and
>> not memory to compensate the lack of language expressiveness. I have no
>> real idea of how much can be saved in terms of memory between the 3
>> snippets I've shared with millions of C instances.
>
>
> Private symbols are not necessary for this.  Unique symbols work just fine.
>
>
>>
>>  - What are some examples of real-world applications where the runtime
>>> security of private slots is necessary?
>>>
>> It really depends on what you mean by "necessary". As far as I'm
>> concerned, it'd be all application using third-party code and a lot of
>> websites embed a Google Analytics script, so that would be a lot of them
>> (looking forward to the day GA is being hacked by the way :-) )
>
>
> I want to see more along these lines.  What is the security model for
> "loading third-party" code and in what way do private slots help?
>
> { Kevin }
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130114/1527f79f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list