Or maybe it would be ```js theFunction(obj.&foo, obj.&bar); ```
to explicitly pass the particular properties, and would account for nested properties too: ```js theFunction(obj.foo.&bar, obj.lorem.&ipsum); ``` #!/JoePea On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:29 PM #!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think it is a good idea, but maybe we need to think about what the > final syntax would be. About segregation, if the library changes the > signature, then they'll have the whole source object, right? Maybe for > the mentioned security the user would need to opt in: > > ```js > theFunction(&obj.foo, &obj.bar); > ``` > > would allow the function to destructure, and only destructure, by > reference of those given properties, for example. Then the contract > can not silently change from secure to insecure. > > #!/JoePea > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:47 AM Andrea Giammarchi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > to expand further: you *could* access such reference via `arguments[0]`, > > but *that* won't be possible with arrow functions, as example, so that > > `({&reactive}, maybe) => { if (maybe) reactive = true; }` is another > > pattern that doesn't need the whole object around, or to be propagated, > > when you can pass it via `{&reactive}` to anything else, covering then the > > `arguments` point too. > > > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:44 PM Andrea Giammarchi > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > the proposal is just a debatable syntax sugar for something we already > >> > can do > >> > >> that's basically the entirety of the syntax sugar proposals since ES2015, > >> right? also proxy and globalThis are *really* unrelated to this, imho, > >> while leaking objects all over down the pipe is my major concern, > >> something this proposal avoids, as no code will have a reference to the > >> entirety of the source object, they'll deal with a known property name > >> passed by reference, incapable of changing anything else in the source > >> object ... so it's rather a signal, than a convention. > >> > >> this means composability, different classes/prototypes passed as > >> arguments, and the certainty nothing can inspect, change, or deal, with > >> the source, which means increased security, as opposite to pass instances > >> and whole objects references around. > >> > >> You have a reference to a property, you don't see its source. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:19 PM Augusto Moura <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > ```js > >>> > function stuff(source, extra) { > >>> > const {value, method} = source; > >>> > > >>> > if (condition) > >>> > method.call(source); > >>> > > >>> > if (value === extra) > >>> > source.value = 'no more'; > >>> > } > >>> > ``` > >>> > >>> I mean, in this case you can skip destructuring altogether, having a one > >>> way and way only of value indirection is a Pretty Good Thing™ (even > >>> though we already have proxys, globalThis and other indirection > >>> shenanigans), I never felt annoyed of just using `source.value` or > >>> `source.method()` instead of `value` and `method()`, again the proposal > >>> is just a debatable syntax sugar for something we already can do. I > >>> wonder if we could ever do the reference thingy in user-land with > >>> variable level decorators, if it ever gets discussed again in the > >>> meetings. Would be still kinda fishy to propose and implement > > > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
