216Re: [caplet] Re: Object.getProperties
- May 21, 2008Douglas Crockford wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, David-Sarah Hopwood <david.hopwood@...>I don't want to have to do that in Jacaranda (where it would otherwise
>> That's why I suggested a name using the __...__ convention.
>> Otherwise, a subset language that does not do rewriting must do one of:
>> - blacklist the name 'getProperties', which is ugly;
>> - rebind 'Object' when running subset code, which does not have
>> well-defined semantics and may cause compatibility problems;
>> - block access to 'Object', which would not otherwise be necessary.
>> Actually, a better idea would be to move *all* of the methods proposed
>> to be added to Object, to a new global 'Reflect'. Rebinding 'Reflect'
>> in order to provide tamed versions of these operations when running
>> subset code would not have the same problems as rebinding 'Object',
>> since 'Reflect' is not used for anything else.
> Mark came up with a better idea: ADsafe denies any access to Object.
be safe to allow first-class access to Object).
- << Previous post in topic