FYI, the ideas expressed in this thread are now written up as a strawman:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:revokable_proxies
Cheers,
Tom
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
I wrote up a strawman that summarizes the discussion on proxies private
names in this thread:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proxies_names
There are still some open issues though.
Cheers,
Tom
___
es-discuss mailing list
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote up a strawman that summarizes the discussion on proxies private
names in this thread:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proxies_names
There are still some open issues though.
I like it! Seems
2012/9/18 Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
Changing to an unknownPrivateName() trap is interesting. It seems
kinda weird to be a *trap*, rather than just a property on the handler
object, though. Is there a good reason to have that be dynamic?
Well, you could indeed define it as a
Le 18/09/2012 10:44, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote up a strawman that summarizes the discussion on proxies private
names in this thread:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proxies_names
There are still
On 17 September 2012 18:37, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
'let' is certainly not going to be faster than 'var' in any case
There is at least one very important counterexample to that claim: the
global scope. Assuming lexical global scope (as we tentatively agreed
upon at the last
On Sep 18, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 17 September 2012 19:51, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
These are good questions. Paul will be attending the TC39 meeting this
week, and can likely talk to specific
On 2012-09-17 10:04 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Moral of this story: avoid United.
/be
I have had similar experiences on Alaska, Delta, and long, long ago on
Amtrak. The moral is more complicated than that.
There may be an important meta-moral here.
On 18 September 2012 13:41, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Yes but but there are fairly simple heuristics that approximate that result,
for example:
if no function calls dominate the initialization of x then TDZ checks will
never need to be made for x
Yes, except that in
For some reason I can't open document repository to look at the latest
venue document. The last one I have says that the room is still unknown.
--
Nebojša Ćirić
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
I just spoke to Allen and need to make a correction the post above:
computed properties were, in fact, later dropped.
Rick
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Dean,
I also really love clojure protocols and in fact tried to propose few
extensions
My point is: how do you make sure you don't redefine an existing syntax? Or,
if that the syntax you're defining for your personnal use will not be
reclaimed by a next version of ES?
// Polyfill for syntaxFeature:
/*@cc_on
/*@if !support syntaxFeature */
code that
François REMY wrote:
My point is: how do you make sure you don't redefine an existing
syntax? Or, if that the syntax you're defining for your personnal use
will not be reclaimed by a next version of ES?
// Polyfill for syntaxFeature:
/*@cc_on
/*@if !support syntaxFeature */
It's still early to say. But my feeling is that if we can get macros working,
we can introduce new syntax via modules, not just unconditionally throwing them
in everywhere. Then you don't have to do these kinds of global conditional
things; rather, you just import the syntax from modules. The
Hi Colin,
When changing the implementation of a standard built-in function that's defined
in the ECMAScript Language Specification, you should always check the
specification:
http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/
In this case, it seems your extension of the accepted formats is allowed by
This is the response I posted to the bugzilla issue:
I would like to see a better motivation present for why this change is
important. In particular, it is a deviation from the ECMAScript standard.
While syntactic extensions to the Date.parse syntax is allowed by the
specification. It is
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
This is the response I posted to the bugzilla issue:
I would like to see a better motivation present for why this change is
important. In particular, it is a deviation from the ECMAScript standard.
While
17 matches
Mail list logo
