Security Demands Simplicity (was: Private Slots)
bruant.d at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 10:23:39 PST 2013
Le 21/01/2013 19:20, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
> On 21 Jan 2013 17:33, "Tom Van Cutsem" <tomvc.be at gmail.com
> <mailto:tomvc.be at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > So let's revisit the assumption: if a membrane does intercept and
> wrap symbols, then two previously isolated pieces of code can never
> come to share the same private symbol.
> I'm not sure I understand what "wrapping a symbol" would actually
> mean. Are you implying that proxies that target a symbol should
> actually be usable _as_ a symbol?
Maybe that's what Tom meant, but in the case he described, creating a
corresponding new private symbol would work just fine without having to
create a proxy around a private symbol.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss