Re: GSJ GIRepository VS Seed

[Andrea Giammarchi <andrea giammarchi gmail com>]

> There is not even any Gio.LocalFile known to JS.

```js

const a = imports.gi.Gio.File.new_for_path('./a.js');

// here the "now known to JS" Gio.LocalFile.prototype

Object.getPrototypeOf(a).shenanigans = true;

const b = imports.gi.Gio.File.new_for_path('./b.js');

// all instances affected indeed

print(b.shenanigans); // true

```

> It's not exposed in the GIR file, so there is never a prototype object created in the first place

There is:

```js

const a = imports.gi.Gio.File.new_for_path('./a.js');

// here the *shared* Gio.LocalFile.prototype

Object.getPrototypeOf(a);

```

> In GJS, you can check if an object implements an interface with myObj.constructor.implements(Gio.File).

That's good to know, thanks, yet if you read first messages of this thread it was about patching upfront and not at runtime.

I understand I can find at runtime pretty much anything I want, but since there is an introspection ability, why are there undocumented instances around with undocumented prototypes?

Or better, why `Gio.File.new` creates something unrelated with `Gio.File.prototype` or `Gio.File` methods ?

Since this super secret thing is easily leaked, why not fixing this instead of saying that it shouldn't be known?

The reason I've asked is that I've discovered there are hidden classes the GIR won't tell me, doesn't know, but **are** on my way.

> I don't believe Spidermonkey would support overloading instanceof for this

`instanceof` is the most easily "overloaded" ( not actually overloaded, it just checks `rightSide.prototype.isPrototypeOf(leftSide)` ) operator which is why I am asking if this would ever be solved.

"No", as answer, would be more than OK, I'm just trying to find a solution to *my* problem.

Thanks for understanding and Best Regards