Security Demands Simplicity (was: Private Slots)

David Bruant 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.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130121/1f5a3b22/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list