javascript - Defining Setter/Getter for an unparented local variable: impossible?

Question

There's a few previous questions on StackOverflow questioning how one goes about accessing local variables via the scope chain, like if you wanted to reference a local variables using bracket notation and a string, you'd need something like __local__["varName"]. Thus far I haven't found even the hackiest method for accomplishing this, and haven't come up with a method after hours of exploiting every trick I know.

The purpose for it is to implement getters/setters on arbitrary unparented variables. Object.defineProperties or __defineGet/Setter__ require a context to be called on. For properties in the global or window contexts you can accomplish the goal of having a setter/getter for direct references to the object.

Object.defineProperty(this, "glob", {get: function(){return "direct access"})
console.log(glob); //"direct access"

Even in my tests with a custom extension I compiled into a modified Chromium that runs prior to any window creation where the context is the actual global context, and even trying to call this directly in the global context crashes my program, I can pull this off without a hitch:

Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "define", {
    value: function(name, descriptor){
        Object.defineProperty(this, name, descriptor);
    }
};
define("REALLYglobal", {get: function(){ return "above window context"; }});

And it is then available in all frames created later as a global routed through the specified getter/setter. The old __defineGet/Setter__ also works in that context without specifying what to call it on (doesn't work in Firefox though, the method above does).

So basically it's possible to define get/set guards for any variable on an object, including the window/global context with direct call to the object (you don't need window.propname, just propname). This is the issue with being unable to reference unparented scoped variables, being the only type that can be in an accessible scope but have no addressable container. Of course they're also the most commonly used too so it's not an edge case. This problem also transcends the current implementation of Proxies in ES6/Harmony since it's a problem specifically with being unable to address a local object's container with the language's syntax.

The reason I want to be able to do this is that it's the only barrier to allow overloading of most math operators for use in complex objects like arrays and hashes and deriving a complex resulting value. I need to be able to hook into the setter in cases where a value is being set on an object type I've set up for overloading. No problem if the object can be global or can be a contained in a parent object, which is probably what I'll just go with. It's still useful with a.myObject, but the goal is to make it as transparently usable as possible.

Not only that, but it'd just be really useful to be able to accomplish something like this:

var point3d = function(){
    var x, y, z;
    return {
        get: function(){ return [x, y, z]; },
        set: function(vals){ x=vals[0]; y=vals[1]; z=vals[2]; }
    };
};

(That is similar to ES6's destructuring but has more general applications for implementing functionality attached to getting/setting and not just transporting complex values). Even this basic code will completely fail:

var x = {myname: "intercept valueOf and :set: to overload math ops!", index: 5};
x++; //x is now NaN if you don't implement a setter somehow

I don't care how hacky the solution is, at this point it's just an intense curiosity for me as to whether it can be accomplished, even if it requires breaking every best practice that exists. I've crashed Firefox and Chrome a few hundred times in pursuit of this so far by doing things like redefining/intercepting/modifying Object.prototype.valueOf/toString, Function.prototype Function.prototype.constructor, Function.prototype.call/apply, arguments.callee.caller, etc. with infinite recursion errors and whatnot in attempts to jury rig contexts retroactively. The only thing that I've been able to make work is wrapping basically the whole thing with eval and dynamically building code chunks, which is a bridge too far for me to ever actually use. The only other remotely successful route was in using with combined with pre-defining all local variables on a container, but that's obviously very intrusive on top of the issues with using with.

question from:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7400250/defining-setter-getter-for-an-unparented-local-variable-impossible

Answer 1

It looks like the answer is No. I have been searching for behavior like this for quite a while. I have not been able to come up with any passable solution. This SO question seems similar. Python has the nice locals keyword.