- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:01:39 -0800
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- CC: public-web-security@w3.org, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On 11/6/12 1:04 AM, Alex Russell wrote: > It's possible to model this the other way: it calls a JS setter which > may throw or call an IDL setter. How does that help? > To preserve the invariants...I suppose without the overhead of having to > define a brand new type since it's a one-off. I think the overhead involved is very small, personally... > I think that's a dated understanding of proxies. The current Direct > Proxies proposal applies instanceof to the target Ah, interesting. That would make things a bit better, yes. > As I suggested before, the exercise here should be to write down the > behavior you want in JS and then transcribe it back to IDL. Yes, on this I agree. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 15:02:20 UTC