Small feedback from users.
This example does not look right.
script type=harmony
// import everything
import Math;
alert(2π = + sum(pi, pi));
/script
It should be
script type=harmony
// import everything as Math
import Math;
alert(2π = + Math.sum(Math.pi, Math.pi));
/script
We already have
Hi Vassily, thanks for the feedback.
It should be
script type=harmony
// import everything as Math
import Math;
alert(2π = + Math.sum(Math.pi, Math.pi));
/script
This is already possible with the `import Math as Math' form (which
incidentally can easily be compiled to be exactly
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:04 AM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
First, it's also possible to achieve isolation via lexical scope by
using functions, closures, and objects, as Dave's example shows. Our
Suppose - maybe unlikely - the client platform webcam is exposed to
ECMAScript in a HTML5 webapp. How would this be accessed in a module system:
import modwebcam; // what is this? native code? do i have access to it? via
a container/context/global object?
import JSON; // is this native code?
How
On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote:
Suppose - maybe unlikely - the client platform webcam is exposed to
ECMAScript in a HTML5 webapp.
The whole issue of webcam API security is important, but not in es-
discuss, and not tied to module systems.
I dread the w3c pushing an
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
That's only the case if X, Y, and Z provide access to their internal
state via the bindings they export.
The problem is not defending the integrity of X, Y and Z. The problem is this:
import X as ...;
import Y as
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
It's important to note again that the second-class proposal relies on
lexical scope for isolation. Importing all exports imports static bindings
with error on conflict, and you can selectively import (with renaming) if
you
-Original Message-
From: ihab.a...@gmail.com
...
The problem is not defending the integrity of X, Y and Z. The problem
is this:
import X as ...;
import Y as ...;
function f1() { /* operate on the authorities of 'X' */ }
function f2() { /* operate on the authorities of
On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:48 PM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
That's only the case if X, Y, and Z provide access to their internal
state via the bindings they export.
The problem is not defending the integrity of X, Y and
On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
The problem is not defending the integrity of X, Y and Z. The
problem is this:
import X as ...;
In the proposal, the ... is the name of a first-class object you can
use to reference exports from X. If X exports f1 this form does
*not*
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
In either module system approach, first-class or second-class, nothing
prevents a module from conveying authority, which may be unwanted or even
hazardous. Zero-authority modules and a service registry are as far as I can
On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Kevin Curtis wrote:
A service registry sounds interesting. Is there a proposal out there
(in this group or elsewhere) dealing with how/where authority to
platform objects or object capabilities are dished out.
Ihab talked about it on the list:
Sounds good. A Context is configured with the objects (eg dom, xhr) that the
developer wants to make accessible in the Context. These objects are bound to
an outer lexical frame which all modules imported into the Context can
access. Contexts are the means by which access to platform
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
In terms of mechanism, that's not exactly what I had in mind, but in terms
of purpose that's the rough idea (specifically: contexts are the means by
which access to platform resources are mediated -- yes). Creating new
Thanks. I can see how it hangs together now.
Whatever we come up with for modules would be a good way to structure
all of the potential additions in Harmony - ArrayBuffers, Proxies,
etc.
--
sam th
sa...@ccs.neu.edu
Also for new HTML5 functionality. Furthermore, browser vendors could
Hi,
Last week at the TC39 meeting, we had a constructive discussion about
proxies (a.k.a. catch-alls).
I summarized the feedback received by the committee in a separate Feedback
section: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies#feedback
Several committee members wanted to know what
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
If you don't trust yourself, then create separate modules for f1 and f2 that
only import
X or Y and not both.
Ok, that's a good solution.
It seems to me that the 2nd class module proposal is all about:
I forgot to include my footnote!
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:39 AM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
... the 2nd class [*] proposal ...
[*] - The name 2nd class is something of a convenience for the
moment. Whether modules are 1st or 2nd class is a downstream thing we
can talk about later; there are
2010/2/2 David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
Hi Vassily, thanks for the feedback.
It should be
script type=harmony
// import everything as Math
import Math;
alert(2π = + Math.sum(Math.pi, Math.pi));
/script
This is already possible with the `import Math as Math' form (which
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:48 PM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Giving something access to all of the things I have access to is
_the_ problem that leads to excess authority, the separation of
designation from authorization
Another clarification:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:17 AM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Assume I am the code of a module, by the 2nd-class proposal ...
In this example, what I'm saying is that I am coding a module that says:
import fs as fs;
/* now create one or more objects with limited
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
import X as ...;
import Y as ...;
function f1() { /* operate on the authorities of 'X' */ }
function f2() { /* operate on the authorities of 'Y' */ }
In this fashion, I cannot limit, via
Hi Kevin,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Kevin Curtis kevinc1...@googlemail.com wrote:
A service registry sounds interesting. Is there a proposal out there (in
this group or elsewhere) dealing with how/where authority to platform
objects or object capabilities are dished out.
I made up a
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Ihab talked about it on the list:
http://old.nabble.com/Native-modules-td27231395.html
Strawman sent.
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
___
es-discuss mailing list
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Whatever we come up with for modules would be a good way to structure
all of the potential additions in Harmony - ArrayBuffers, Proxies, etc.
Yes: for powerless code, that I do agree with.
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad,
25 matches
Mail list logo
