It doesn't matter. Others will do the same thing in ES6 and then break
under your proposal in ES7.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:42 AM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It would also not be compatible with ES6 code. SES will be freezing Map,
>> Set, WeakMap, and WeakSet instances in order to tamper proof their API. I
>> expect many others will as well. Having this freeze then cause a
>> non-mutability in ES7 will break all such ES6 code. This is a non-starter
>> all around.
>>
>
> Couldn't SES use
> Object.seal/Object.preventExtensions/Object.defineProperty to perform
> tamper-proofing without flipping the "frozen" bit?
> --scott
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150430/7625eeae/attachment.html>
d at domenic.me (2015-05-11T16:56:02.961Z)
It doesn't matter. Others will do the same thing in ES6 and then break
under your proposal in ES7.
It doesn't matter. Others will do the same thing in ES6 and then break under your proposal in ES7. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:42 AM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> > wrote: > >> It would also not be compatible with ES6 code. SES will be freezing Map, >> Set, WeakMap, and WeakSet instances in order to tamper proof their API. I >> expect many others will as well. Having this freeze then cause a >> non-mutability in ES7 will break all such ES6 code. This is a non-starter >> all around. >> > > Couldn't SES use > Object.seal/Object.preventExtensions/Object.defineProperty to perform > tamper-proofing without flipping the "frozen" bit? > --scott > -- Cheers, --MarkM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150430/7625eeae/attachment.html>