unpublish callWithEjector

this addresses https://code.google.com/p/google-caja/issues/detail?id=1374

callWithEjector is not generally safe to use casually, because careless
or malicious code can interfere with the ejection mechanism. This CL
documents that limitation, and also unpublishes callWithEjector and
eject, since they don't appear to have any external uses.

[MarkM, 2013-09-04 01:00:18]

LGTM.

Should this module still be called "ejectorsGuardsTrademarks"?

[kpreid2, 2013-09-04 02:19:22]

On 2013/09/04 01:00:18, MarkM wrote:
> LGTM.
> 
> Should this module still be called "ejectorsGuardsTrademarks"?

MarkM, I am surprised you approve of reducing the “standard library” features of
SES in this way.

[felix8a, 2013-09-04 04:54:39]

@r5590

[Mark S. Miller, 2013-09-04 18:25:32]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:19 PM, <kpreid.switchb.org@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2013/09/04 01:00:18, MarkM wrote:
>
>> LGTM.
>>
>
>  Should this module still be called "ejectorsGuardsTrademarks"?
>>
>
> MarkM, I am surprised you approve of reducing the “standard
> library” features of SES in this way.


I like the functionality of ejectors, but I am uncomfortable with the
implications of doing this as a library rather than directly in the
language, due to the unavoidable interactions with throw/try/catch/finally.
Hiding this now, before customers rely on it, is still easy. If we decide
we wish to expose it again later, that would also be easy.




>
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.**com/13343047/<https://codereview.appspot.com/133...
>
> --
>
> ---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Google Caja Discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
google-caja-discuss+**unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<google-caja-discuss%2Bunsu...
> .
> For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/o...
> .
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM