On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Consensus that we should have iterators.
For this, after all these years (JS1.7 added meta-programmable for-in in 2006),
I'm grateful, although I wanted to add something your notes did not report:
To get consensus, we made a tentative
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Chris Sells wrote:
I'm a huge fan of iterators. As far as index goes, I'm not a fan of the use
of the colon. We should take our time, but something that I wanted to throw
into the pot would be to build on the key-based nature of for-in with syntax
like this:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
[...]
Worse, the use of colon in this new for syntax is confusingly similar to
long-standing future-proofing intentions around runtime type annotations
(aka guards or
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Chris Sells wrote:
I'm a huge fan of iterators. As far as index goes, I'm not a fan of the use
of the colon. We should take our time, but something that I wanted to throw
into the pot would be to build on the key-based nature of for-in with syntax
like this:
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Chris Sells wrote:
I'm a huge fan of iterators. As far as index goes, I'm not a fan of the use
of the colon. We should take our time, but something that I wanted to throw
into the pot would be to build on the
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
[...]
Worse, the use of colon in this new for syntax is confusingly similar to
long-standing future-proofing
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
[...]
Worse, the use of colon in this new
And (sorry, I'll try to keep replies in one message next time) for vs.
forvals does not exactly scream keys vs. values, since for is only
about keys if you know ECMA-262 and expect the mystery meat of enumeration.
IMO, forvals is a non-starter, as is foreach or for each. The for part
of the
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
:: is strictly less pleasant, and really kind of taken due to the
precedents I cited. The less pleasant point is the big one IMHO.
Since this is a purely bikeshedding issue, I don't need to be too
embarrassed by posting
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
:: is strictly less pleasant, and really kind of taken due to the
precedents I cited. The less pleasant point is the big one IMHO.
Since this
10 matches
Mail list logo
