On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Adam Barth <abarth@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Domenic Denicola < > domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 16, 2014, at 10:14, "Adam Barth" <abarth@chromium.org> wrote: >> > I don't believe there's an experiment you can run today in browsers to >> answer that question. Map would give you a way to answer that question, >> which is why we need to decide what the answer ought to be. >> >> Map is entirely implementable in today's JavaScript, modulo efficiency >> concerns. So I don't see how this could be true. The answer should be >> whatever such a JS Map implementation does. >> > > Hum... In that case, I think we need to act as if the identity of the > WindowProxy is preserved across browsing context navigations. > I, too, find this argument pretty convincing. And though I think it makes a little less sense for WeakMap (due to the use case of WeakMaps as private names), but consistency between all the different containers is likely worthwhile. - Adam
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 20:09:21 UTC