Comments on Sept Meeting Notes

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 16:26:41 PDT 2013


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:

> So let's assume there is such a registry. You can avoid accidental
> collisions with the ugliest name in the universe -- gensym that thing to
> the n'th degree -- but you're no longer forcing all clients to deal with
> the ugliness. You've abstracted it behind your library. Let's say I'm
> implementing a serialization library and want to create a @@serialize
> symbol for people to coordinate on. I'd do something like the following:
>
>     // serialize.js
>     import { lookup, register } from "js/registry";
>
>     const myGUID =
> "__@@blaaaaarrrgggghhhAAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHfnordfnordfnord29834983413451839512@
> @__";
>

Thinking about this in terms of tooling, at even the terminal level, might
look like this: http://gyazo.com/f61d0e25366ce7e526c79ab7fa77cb17.png

Subjectively, this makes my skin crawl.

Rick


>
>     export default = lookup(myGUID) || register(myGUID, new
> Symbol("friendly name"));
>
> Now every client simply gets to use
>
>     import serialize from "serialize";
>
>     obj[serialize] = function() { ... };
>
> without having to care about how ugly the GUID used in the registry was.
>
> Dave
>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:07 PM, "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we swept the collision problem under the registry rug. Let's
> start by discussing registry designs assuming we do have Symbols. Let's see
> if we can design a registry that allows cross-realm duck typing without
> re-introducing the same possibility of accidental collision that we'd have
> without Symbols. Note: For this question, malicious collision is not an
> issue.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 18:49, "Yehuda Katz" <wycats at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Private state doesn't satisfy these requirements because they trap on
> the wrong side of the proxy.
> >
> > Agreed, in many cases I don't want private state; I *want* something
> that can be copied by Object.mixin, for example. For private state, weak
> maps are fine, and used today already.
> >
> >
> > Agreed with Yehuda and both of Domenic's points. I don't need/want
> Symbol for private anything—I want it for cases that don't deserve a
> WeakMap, should be reflected and can be "seen" by
> Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(), but want to avoid the possibility of
> collision.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >     Cheers,
> >     --MarkM
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130926/616adf9c/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list