Yes. See <
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-July/032339.html> for
more along these lines.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Erik Arvidsson
<erik.arvidsson at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> > This seems to neatly separate concerns, but Arv pointed out that for some
> > proxy cases it won't work. I forget what he said exactly, though. Cc'ing
> > him.
>
> We went through the exercise of only having private symbols but it
> lead to some issues. Here is one that we identified.
>
> Lets assume we use a private symbol for the @@iterator. The symbol can
> still be checked because anyone that has access to the right module
> can get it. It is also important that a proxy for an object, O, is not
> invoked when you do O[privateSymbol]. This means that it is not
> possible to create an iterable proxy object, since no trap on the
> proxy is invoked.
>
> Marks' relationship proposal tries to solve the issue of private
> symbols and proxies, by inverting the relationship, so that x[r]
> invokes a method on r, therefore allowing you to create a proxy for r.
> However, for the built-in meta protocol symbols, you cannot replace
> them with a proxy to the symbol, since the symbol is already hard
> coded to use the @@iterator symbol.
>
> Therefore, we need something like public symbols for the meta operations.
>
> --
> erik
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>



-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

  Cheers,
  --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130730/bb7208d2/attachment.html>

Yes. See https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-July/032339.html for more along these lines.