- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:22:03 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
- CC: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > I definitely see no problem in creating a pair of objects that are > "friends" and can access each other's internal state. > > Using a WeakMap to specify that relationship seems ok, though I don't > think that's how I'd implement for performance reasons. Instead I'd > have the two objects share a closure and then put state that needs to > be accessible to both on that closure. I think WeakSet is a mistake. If you want a protocol among "friend" objects expressed in the base language, use a suite of methods -- a structural or "duck" type. Using a WeakSet both over- and under-specifies. Any object can be added to a WeakSet as a key (making for a DoS hazard). A WeakSet 'has' test does not prove anything about the structural subtype relationship (however defined). Etc. /be
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 23:22:35 UTC