Node examples

README.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Bind operator for JavaScript
+# Bind-`this` operator for JavaScript
 ECMAScript Stage-0 Proposal. J. S. Choi, 2021.
 
 * **[Formal specification][]**
@@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ ECMAScript Stage-0 Proposal. J. S. Choi, 2021.
 (A [formal specification][] is available.)
 
 **Method binding** `->` is a **left-associative infix operator**.
-Its right-hand side is an **identifier**
-or an **expression** in `(` `)`,
+Its right-hand side is an **identifier** (like `f`)
+or a parenthesized **expression** (like `(hof())`),
 either of which must evaluate to a **function**.
 Its left-hand side is some expression that evaluates to an **object**.
 The `->` operator **binds** its left-hand side
@@ -30,36 +30,48 @@ equivalent to `createMethod().bind(obj)`.
 If the operator’s right-hand side does not evaluate to a function during runtime,
 then the program throws a `TypeError`.
 
-Function binding has equal **[precedence][]** with
-**member expressions**, call expressions, `new` expressions with arguments,
-and optional chains.
-
-[precedence]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Operator_Precedence
-
-| Left-hand side                  | Example       |
-| ------------------------------- | ------------- |
-| Primary expressions             | `a->fn`       |
-| Member expressions              | `a.b->fn`     |
-| Call expressions                | `a()->fn`     |
-|`new` expressions with arguments | `new C()->fn` |
-| Optional chains                 | `a?.b->fn`    |
-
-The bound functions created by the bind operator
+The bound functions created by the bind-`this` operator
 are **indistinguishable** from the bound functions
 that are already created by [`Function.prototype.bind`][bind].
 Both are **exotic objects** that do not have a `prototype` property,
 and which may be called like any typical function.
 
-Similarly to the `?.` optional-chaining token,
-the `->` token may be **padded by whitespace**.\
+From this definition, `o->f(...args)`
+is **indistinguishable** from `f.call(o, ...args)`,
+except that its behavior does **not change**
+if code elsewhere **reassigns** the global method `Function.prototype.call`.
+
+The `this`-bind operator has equal **[precedence][]** with
+**member expressions**, call expressions, `new` expressions with arguments,
+and optional chains.
+Like those operators, the `this`-bind operator also may be short-circuited
+by optional chains in its left-hand side.
+
+[precedence]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Operator_Precedence
+
+| Left-hand side                     | Example      | Grouping
+| ---------------------------------- | ------------ | --------------
+| Member expressions                 |`a.b->fn.c`   |`((a.b)->fn).c`
+| Call expressions                   |`a()->fn()`   |`((a())->fn)()`
+| Optional chains                    |`a?.b->fn`    |`(a?.b)->fn`
+|`new` expressions with arguments    |`new C(a)->fn`|`(new C(a))->fn`
+|`new` expressions without arguments*|`new a->fn`   |`new (a->fn)`
+
+\* Like `.` and `?.`, the `this`-bind operator also have tighter precedence
+than `new` expressions without arguments.
+Of course, `new a->fn` is not a very useful expression,
+just like how `new (fn.bind(a))` is not a very useful expression.
+
+Similarly to the `.` and `?.` operators,
+the `->` operator may be **padded by whitespace**.\
 For example, `a -> m`\
 is equivalent to `a->fn`,\
 and `a -> (createFn())`\
 is equivalent to `a->(createFn())`.
 
 There are **no other special rules**.
 
-## Why a bind operator
+## Why a bind-`this` operator
 [`Function.prototype.bind`][call] and [`Function.prototype.call`][bind]
 are very common in **object-oriented JavaScript** code.
 They are useful methods that allows us to apply functions to any object,
@@ -107,7 +119,7 @@ delete Array.prototype.slice;
 slice.call([0, 1, 2], 1, 2);
 ```
 
-But this is still vulnerable to mutation of `Function.prototype`:
+But this approach is still vulnerable to mutation of `Function.prototype`:
 
 ```js
 // Our own trusted code, running before any adversary.
@@ -155,38 +167,124 @@ obj->extensionMethod();
 // Compare with extensionMethod.call(obj).
 ```
 
-The bind operator can also **extract** a **method** from a **class**
-into a function whose first parameter becomes its `this` binding:\
-for example, `const { slice } = Array.prototype; arr->slice(1, 3);`.\
-It can also similarly extract a method from an **instance**
-into a function that always uses that instance as its `this` binding:\
-for example, `const arr = arr->(arr.slice); slice(1, 3);`.
-
 ## Real-world examples
 Only minor formatting changes have been made to the status-quo examples.
 
-<table>
-<thead>
-<tr>
-<th>Status quo
-<th>With binding
+### Node.js
+Node.js’s runtime depends on many built-in JavaScript global intrinsic objects
+that are vulnerable to mutation or prototype pollution by third-party libraries.
+When initializing a JavaScript runtime, Node.js therefore caches
+wrapped versions of every global intrinsic object (and its methods)
+in a [large `primordials` object][primordials.js].
 
-<tbody>
-<tr>
-<td>
+Many of the global intrinsic methods inside of the `primordials` object
+rely on the `this` binding.
+`primordials` therefore contains numerous entries that look like this:
+```js
+ArrayPrototypeConcat: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.concat),
+ArrayPrototypeCopyWithin: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.copyWithin),
+ArrayPrototypeFill: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.fill),
+ArrayPrototypeFind: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.find),
+ArrayPrototypeFindIndex: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.findIndex),
+ArrayPrototypeLastIndexOf: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.lastIndexOf),
+ArrayPrototypePop: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.pop),
+ArrayPrototypePush: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.push),
+ArrayPrototypePushApply: applyBind(Array.prototype.push),
+ArrayPrototypeReverse: uncurryThis(Array.prototype.reverse),
+```
+…and so on, where `uncurryThis` is `Function.prototype.call.bind`
+(also called [“call-binding”][call-bind]),
+and `applyBind` is the similar `Function.prototype.apply.bind`.
+
+[call-bind]: https://npmjs.com/call-bind
 
+In other words, Node.js must **wrap** every `this`-sensitive global intrinsic method
+in a `this`-uncurried **wrapper function**,
+whose first argument is the method’s `this` value,
+using the `uncurryThis` helper function.
+
+The result is that code that uses these global intrinsic methods,
+like this code adapted from [node/lib/internal/v8_prof_processor.js][]:
 ```js
-???
+  // `specifier` is a string.
+  const file = specifier.slice(2, -4);
+
+  // Later…
+  if (process.platform === 'darwin') {
+    tickArguments.push('--mac');
+  } else if (process.platform === 'win32') {
+    tickArguments.push('--windows');
+  }
+  tickArguments.push(...process.argv.slice(1));
 ```
-From ???.
+…must instead look like this:
+```js
+// Note: This module assumes that it runs before any third-party code.
+const {
+  ArrayPrototypePush,
+  ArrayPrototypePushApply,
+  ArrayPrototypeSlice,
+  StringPrototypeSlice,
+} = primordials;
+
+  // Later…
+  const file = StringPrototypeSlice(specifier, 2, -4);
+
+  // Later…
+  if (process.platform === 'darwin') {
+    ArrayPrototypePush(tickArguments, '--mac');
+  } else if (process.platform === 'win32') {
+    ArrayPrototypePush(tickArguments, '--windows');
+  }
+  ArrayPrototypePushApply(tickArguments, ArrayPrototypeSlice(process.argv, 1));
+```
+
+This code is now protected against prototype pollution by accident and by adversaries
+(e.g., `delete Array.prototype.push` or `delete Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]`).
+However, this protection comes at two costs:
+
+1. These [uncurried wrapper functions sometimes dramatically reduce performance][#38248].
+   This would not be a problem if Node.js could cache
+   and use the intrinsic methods directly.
+   But the only current way to use intrinsic methods
+   would be with `Function.prototype.call`, which is also vulnerable to mutation.
 
-<td>
+2. The Node.js community has had [much concern about barriers to contribution][#30697]
+   by ordinary JavaScript developers, due to the unidiomatic code encouraged by these
+   uncurried wrapper functions.
+
+Both of these problems are much improved by the bind-`this` operator.
+Instead of wrapping every global method with `uncurryThis`,
+Node.js could cached and used **directly**
+without worrying about `Function.prototype.call` mutation:
 
 ```js
-???
+// Note: This module assumes that it runs before any third-party code.
+const $apply = Function.prototype.apply;
+const $push = Array.prototype.push;
+const $arraySlice = Array.prototype.slice;
+const $stringSlice = String.prototype.slice;
+
+  // Later…
+  const file = specifier->$stringSlice(2, -4);
+
+  // Later…
+  if (process.platform === 'darwin') {
+    tickArguments->$push('--mac');
+  } else if (process.platform === 'win32') {
+    tickArguments->$push('--windows');
+  }
+  $push->$apply(tickArguments, process.argv->$arraySlice(1));
 ```
 
-</table>
+Performance has improved, and readability has improved.
+There are no more uncurried wrapper functions;
+instead, the code uses the intrinsic methods in a notation
+similar to normal method calling with `.`.
+
+[node/lib/internal/v8_prof_processor.js]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/e46c680bf2b211bbd52cf959ca17ee98c7f657f5/lib/internal/v8_prof_processor.js
+[#38248]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/38248
+[#30697]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/30697
 
 ## Non-goals
 A goal of this proposal is **simplicity**.
@@ -201,23 +299,27 @@ but method extraction is **already possible** with this proposal.\
 is not much wordier than\
 `const slice = arr&.slice; slice(1, 3);`
 
-**Extension getters and setters**
-(i.e., extending objects with new property getters or setters
-**without mutating** the object)
-may **also** be useful,
-and this proposal would be **forward compatible** with such a feature
-using the **same operator** `->` for **property-object binding**,
-in addition to this proposal’s **method binding**.
-Getter/setter binding could be added in a separate proposal
-using `{ get () {}, set () {} }` objects.
-For example, we could add an extension getter `allDivs`
-to a `document` object like so:
+**Extracting property accessors** (i.e., getters and setters)
+is not a goal of this proposal.
+Get/set accessors are **not like** methods. Methods are **values**.
+Accessors themselves are **not values**;
+they are functions that activate when getting or setting properties.
+Getters/setters have to be extracted using `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor`;
+they are not handled in a special way.
+This verbosity may be considered to be desirable [syntactic salt][]:
+it makes the developer’s intention (to extract getters/setters – and not methods)
+more explicit.
+
 ```js
-const allDivs = {
-	get () { return this.querySelectorAll('div'); }
-};
+const { get: $getSize } =
+  Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(
+    Set.prototype, 'size');
 
-document->allDivs;
+// The adversary’s code.
+delete Set; delete Function;
+
+// Our own trusted code, running later.
+new Set([0, 1, 2])->$getSize();
 ```
 
 **Function/expression application**,
@@ -228,3 +330,6 @@ Instead, it is addressed by the **pipe operator**,
 with which this proposal’s syntax **works well**.\
 For example, we could untangle `h(await g(o->f(0, v)), 1)`\
 into `v |> o->f(0, %) |> await g(%) |> h(%, 1)`.
+
+[syntactic salt]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_sugar#Syntactic_salt
+[primordials.js]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/lib/internal/per_context/primordials.js