Skip to content

Normative: add #x in obj syntax#2290

Merged
ljharb merged 1 commit intotc39:masterfrom
ljharb:private-fields-in-in
Jul 14, 2021
Merged

Normative: add #x in obj syntax#2290
ljharb merged 1 commit intotc39:masterfrom
ljharb:private-fields-in-in

Conversation

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

@ljharb ljharb commented Jan 27, 2021 •
edited
Loading

This PR is based on top of #1668. Please review by commit. As #1668 is updated and/or merged, I'll rebase this one.

@ljharb ljharb added normative change Affects behavior required to correctly evaluate some ECMAScript source text needs test262 tests The proposal should specify how to test an implementation. Ideally via github.com/tc39/test262 pending stage 4 This proposal has not yet achieved stage 4, but may otherwise be ready to merge. proposal This is related to a specific proposal, and will be closed/merged when the proposal reaches stage 4. labels Jan 27, 2021
@ljharb ljharb requested review from a team, bakkot, michaelficarra and syg January 27, 2021 22:19
@ljharb ljharb mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2021
Closed
25 tasks
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from 37b4f60 to 17d9044 Compare January 27, 2021 22:28
jmdyck
jmdyck requested changes Jan 28, 2021
View reviewed changes
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from 17d9044 to b95c824 Compare January 28, 2021 20:30
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
3ad18be 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from b95c824 to 3ad18be Compare January 28, 2021 20:35
@ljharb
Copy link
Member Author

ljharb commented Jan 28, 2021

I've split out all the fixes you requested that aren't part of this PR, but are instead part of #1668, into a separate commit. Please only review the last commit here :-)

@ljharb ljharb requested a review from jmdyck January 28, 2021 20:36
@jmdyck
Copy link
Collaborator

jmdyck commented Jan 28, 2021

Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention (re #1668).

ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
5349602 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from 3ad18be to 5349602 Compare February 5, 2021 16:04
jridgewell
jridgewell reviewed Feb 5, 2021
View reviewed changes
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
e3c5cd5 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from 5349602 to e3c5cd5 Compare February 5, 2021 21:11
@ljharb ljharb requested a review from jridgewell February 5, 2021 21:12
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
d113e4f 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from e3c5cd5 to d113e4f Compare February 8, 2021 21:24
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
d7c3c84 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from d113e4f to d7c3c84 Compare March 31, 2021 21:36
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
da72c39 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from d7c3c84 to da72c39 Compare April 27, 2021 03:24
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request May 7, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
d563d0e 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@bakkot
Copy link
Member

bakkot commented Jun 28, 2021 •
edited
Loading

No? It's only the class which is able to do this check; you can't write #x in this outside of A.

@ljharb
Copy link
Member Author

ljharb commented Jun 28, 2021

@WebReflection this isn't the only object that can hold a private field; imagine static compare(a, b) { return #x in a && #x in b && a.#x === b.#x; }

@WebReflection
Copy link

WebReflection commented Jun 28, 2021

OK, the class “owns” the private field access, but I wonder what a Proxy trap would do there, and if this check could lead to “leaking” exploits. If Proxy can’t intercept these check then fine, but I didn’t read anything about proxies in the text. If I missed that, no issue, if I didn’t, are private fields leaking via Proxy traps?

@ljharb
Copy link
Member Author

ljharb commented Jun 28, 2021 •
edited
Loading

@WebReflection Proxy has no ability to detect or intercept private fields, or internal slots.

If there's further discussion to be had, can we have it in the discourse or on the proposal repo, instead of here on the spec PR?

@WebReflection
Copy link

WebReflection commented Jun 28, 2021

Thanks! Please ignore my comments then, I had a mix of a-aha and “the heck?” moment there. All good 👍

ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
c274ab1 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from 791f910 to c274ab1 Compare June 29, 2021 02:04
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
b1911ec 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from c274ab1 to b1911ec Compare June 29, 2021 02:08
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
de8ba37 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from b1911ec to de8ba37 Compare June 29, 2021 02:12
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
66a3f9e 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from de8ba37 to 66a3f9e Compare June 29, 2021 02:17
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
f9f006c 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from 66a3f9e to f9f006c Compare June 29, 2021 02:21
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
a060ea8 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from f9f006c to a060ea8 Compare June 29, 2021 02:35
@ljharb ljharb added has stage 4 This PR represents a proposal that has achieved stage 4, and is ready to merge. and removed pending stage 4 This proposal has not yet achieved stage 4, but may otherwise be ready to merge. labels Jul 14, 2021
ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2021
@ljharb
Normative: add #x in obj syntax (tc39#2290)
e172a6e 
See tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in#7
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the private-fields-in-in branch from a060ea8 to e172a6e Compare July 14, 2021 01:11
@ljharb ljharb requested a review from a team July 14, 2021 01:12
@ota-meshi ota-meshi mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2021
Closed
7 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jmdyck jmdyck jmdyck left review comments

@syg syg syg approved these changes

@nicolo-ribaudo nicolo-ribaudo nicolo-ribaudo approved these changes

@michaelficarra michaelficarra Awaiting requested review from michaelficarra

+2 more reviewers

@jridgewell jridgewell jridgewell approved these changes

@bakkot bakkot bakkot approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

has stage 4 This PR represents a proposal that has achieved stage 4, and is ready to merge. has test262 tests normative change Affects behavior required to correctly evaluate some ECMAScript source text proposal This is related to a specific proposal, and will be closed/merged when the proposal reaches stage 4. ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@ljharb @jmdyck @jugglinmike @WebReflection @bakkot @syg @jridgewell @nicolo-ribaudo