Default a moddable host to locked exposure — Build the smallest useful slice

PART I

Warm-up

Reconnect with a useful idea before starting default a moddable host to locked exposure. In one or two sentences, describe the input, output or host boundary from the previous exercise that this lesson builds on. If you are arriving directly, skim the worked example first; there is no locked prerequisite.

A rough note is enough. You can revise it after the example.

PART II

Instruction & guided example

Build an exposure proposal

A moddable host should deliberately expose a small reviewed surface. Default locked exposure is a design policy about visibility, not a substitute for operation/resource checks. Treat each added surface as a contract change requiring review of inputs, effects and failure states.

Exercise host initially exposes readonly asset metadata for mod M. Native file deletion, networkupload and maintenance actions are hidden. A later proposal would expose exportPreview for approved assets. Labels here are exercise contracts; no concrete lck/ulck manifest schema or method implementation is asserted.

Supplied case: Proposal adds exportPreview for assets M owns, to a host-approved destination.

Worked reasoning: Define exposed name, input shape, output meaning, side effects and resource permission. The proposal must say who chooses the destination and how refusal is reported. A name alone is not a reviewable boundary.

Contrast and diagnosis: Publishing the method signature without destination scope can hide a broader data movement change.

Worked reasoning and supplied artifact

// Disposable exercise fixture / host-contract notes; not executable API syntax.
// Supplied input: Proposal adds exportPreview for assets M owns, to a host-approved destination.
// Worked prediction: Define exposed name, input shape, output meaning, side effects and resource permission. The proposal must say who chooses the destination and how refusal is reported. A name alone is not a reviewable boundary.
// Rejected alternative: Publishing the method signature without destination scope can hide a broader data movement change.

Illustrative example from the proposed WillowScript design. The language and WUIX/WMATH/WDB/WAUDIO/WTMP services are not implemented in the supplied source. This site has no interpreter, VM or native host and does not execute or certify the snippet.

Try the guided change

Reconstruct the supplied worked case first: list its inputs, intermediate decisions and final artifact. Compare each row with the explanation and identify exactly where the rejected alternative fails. Then use the changed inputs in Part IV for independent work.

• Write the supplied inputs and initial state before following the example.
• Reconstruct each intermediate calculation or host decision, then compare with the worked artifact.
• Explain why the contrasting alternative fails before attempting the changed inputs in Part IV.

PART III

Take a breather

Step back after the guided example. Look away from the screen, stretch, or reread your prediction. This is an optional learning pause, not a timer or an assessment gate.

When you return, try to name the lesson’s key idea without copying its wording. If that feels difficult, return to Part II and trace one line rather than restarting the entire lesson.

PART IV

Independent practice

Project context: Restricted automation extension. Build a small, understandable change around default a moddable host to locked exposure.

Draft a proposal row for exportPreview with one allowed and one denied destination.

What to produce

Draft a proposal row for exportPreview with one allowed and one denied destination. Include input → intermediate decision/state → predicted outcome, with any required host rule stated explicitly.

• State the intended behavior in a sentence before editing.
• Use only source-backed syntax and the host services whose contract you have been given.
• Record a normal case and a boundary or unavailable-resource case.
• Label hand predictions separately from anything actually measured in a supplied toolchain.

Syntax colors are a reading aid, not a compiler. The line you are editing stays uncolored until you move to a different line; capitalization is never changed. Drafts stay on this browser and code is not executed.

import wuix.widget;
const button = widget.Button({
    text: "Continue",
    events: {
        click: fnc() -> void {
            navigator.open("dashboard");
        }
    }
});

PART V

Self-check

Use this check to notice what to revisit. It does not award a private course grade, block another page or claim to verify compiled code. Every answer has a learning explanation.

You may keep exploring even if you are unsure. Use the hint, compare the trace, and revise your explanation.

PART VI

Recap & small task

Bring the idea back to the mod feature you are building. A useful recap connects the mechanism to a decision you can make in your own code.

• Build an exposure proposal
• Explain the decision for the supplied case, then independently work the changed fixture.
• Separate source-backed behavior, host requirements and untested predictions.

One small recap task

In one or two sentences, name the decisive rule in “Build an exposure proposal” and predict the outcome of one changed input from your independent fixture. State which host behavior still needs real verification.

This marks your personal practice record only. It is not a certification or an official workspace assessment.