On Feb 23, 2015 3:31 PM, "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2015 6:06 AM, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> >>  - We'd definitely want `Map.empty` and `Set.empty` assuming
`Object.freeze` actually froze them
>>
>> Object.freeze does not freeze them, as far as I know. It might require
method overrides.
>
> Object.freeze does not freeze their state. A proposal for a way to either
freeze the state of collections, and/or to create frozen snapshots of
collections, for future ES would be welcome and appreciated. I encourage
any such effort to pay attention to Clojure and React.
>
>
>>
>> >>  - We'd probably want
`Object.freeze(Object.seal(Object.preventExtensions(empty)))`, to be extra
restrictive.
>>
>> Doesn't Object.freeze imply the other two? I thought it did.
>
>
> It does. Given that all these methods of Object have their original value
and that x is not a proxy
>
>     Object.freeze(Object.seal(Object.preventExtensions(x)))
>
> must be equivalent to
>
>     Object.freeze(x)
>

Pardon my ignorance, but in what cases does the proxy in this case differ?
(although it's not entirely relevant in this particular case)

>
> --
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150223/fa6e3b8e/attachment.html>

Pardon my ignorance, but in what cases does the proxy in this case differ?
(although it's not entirely relevant in this particular case)