Re: Fwd: Fwd: Draft Proposed Standard SES (Secure EcmaScript)

I personally wouldn't, but the point i was trying to make is when
makeCounter is untrusted code, and we can eval untrusted code into a
confined space, and makeCounter can do such a thing, we can load
confined code, but passing objects created by the untrusted code to
multiple parties seems delicate

that this static state makeCounter() is factory breaking, but reveals
non-static state makeCounter is not a factory at all since a factory
would inhibit such a thing.

which makes me think that the scope limited eval thing must be the factory?

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:02 AM, David Nicol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Why would you move the declaration into file-scope and completely destroy
> the functionality of a counter factory? The it is essential to the factory
> pattern that the various instances of the created objects are independent,
> having all counters refer to the same count variable instead of a new one
> getting allocated at make-time completely ruins it.
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> var count = 0;
>>
>> function makeCounter() {
>>      // Moved var count = 0 from here to above
>>      // appears to be valid strict javascript afaict
>>      return def({
>>          incr: function() { return ++count;},
>>          decr: function () { return --count;}
>>      });
>> }