On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 24/09/2012 16:39, Dean Landolt a écrit :
s/shared state/shared *mutable* state/
True, I took it as granted, since objects are by default (very) mutable in
JavaScript.
Not necessarily, and they certainly don't
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Is method name-collision a practical problem, or just a theoretical
problem? If it's just a theoretical problem, then we don't need unique
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Kevin Smith khs4
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Jason Orendorff
jason.orendo...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Joseph Spencer
js.developer.undefi...@gmail.com wrote:
Note: NaN and undefined aren't included in A.1 Lexical Grammar;
however, Infinity is. Is this by design? My proposal
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
What is the endgame? Add more terminology to the spec or try to define a
term to be adopted into the spoken lexicon?
The former doesn't currently have any ambiguity and the latter is tough
because...
1. Most devs
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I would add: [[HasInstance]] - @hasInstance
Yes, that one goes with @construct, and it seems safe to hook at
base-level because only instanceof uses [[HasInstance]].
As Mark and Tom argued in
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Allen,
In this
stawmanhttp://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names,
private members are accessed using obj.name, where name can be a
private name that is in scope. Why was this strategy abandoned?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:58 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 07/03/2012 02:10, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
I start this coming from the standpoint of an honest question that I
don't know the answer
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
I'm with Luke here. We shouldn't abuse a common idiom from other
languages, including upstream ones such as CoffeeScript.
Kris's suggestion of + changed to deal with the wrong direction
criticism (which I find compelling
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
One argument for the wrong direction being wrong: if A : B is common
math
syntax for A is a subtype of B, if you turn the arrow around
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to backtrack the conversation, but I'm not convinced that delete
should be used to remove an element. Noone's going to ask me, how do I
delete an element from the set?. They're going to ask me, how do I
remove an
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
As long as we don't end up with ambiguous constructor as Array could be (
Array(1) VS Array([1]) ) ... so what if the iterable *is* the value I would
like to add() automatically ?
Don't use spread on it.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
+1 on ... (spread) exhausting an iterator to expand the iterated values
into positional parameters or initialisers.
What about infinite generators? Punt on any iterators without a predefined
length? Otherwise wouldn't
.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.orgwrote:
+1 on ... (spread) exhausting an iterator to expand the iterated values
into positional parameters or initialisers.
What about infinite
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:50 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:51 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
if you accept a single argument, of course, but what if you Set(..[1, 2,
1]) then ?
`Set(1, 2, 1)` then? Are you suggesting this should throw? So you'd need to
dedupe your arguments before you construct a
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
See the thread containing Dean Landolt's dissent on 'length' being the
best
name:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
wrote:
If you do a native Assertion module, maybe it should be similar to
node's.
http://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/assert.html
It's
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski
jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I was aware of the coroutines in generators, that's why I said it
would be sort of sugar. :)
But it's not sugar, it's a different feature. It's the difference between
shallow and deep continuations.
/cc es-discuss (sorry Brendan -- you always seem to be the target of my
reply-all fails)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Sorry, are you seriously proposing that Node.js users
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:12 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.dewrote:
1. We want sane isObject and isNull predicates, ideally using typeof.
Lack of them continues to bite people, as the web contains code
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
Who can resist such a juicy
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.comwrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de
wrote:
Given that Array already uses `length`, it seems like the obvious choice.
length is my choice as well, for the same reason. It's not
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jorge jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote:
On 08/11/2011, at 22:17, John J Barton wrote:
Just as a point of comparison, I use this form:
Object.keys(o).forEach( function(key) {
body
});
By the way, isn't that above a(nother) good use case for a goto,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Jorge wrote:
On 08/11/2011, at 22:17, John J Barton wrote:
Just as a point of comparison, I use this form:
Object.keys(o).forEach( function(key) {
body
});
By the way, isn't
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Jorge wrote:
On 08/11/2011, at 22:17, John J Barton wrote:
Just
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
It might make sense to provide this as standard functionality:
- Testing if one type is a subtype of another type.
- Returning all supertypes of a given type.
This is especially useful if a type can significantly
Ah, now I see the impetus for your other question (that's what I get for
reading out of order).
I've had some similar questions recently and found myself deep in the rabbit
hole of type theory...and I still don't have a crystal clear answer
understanding. I'll take a swing below but take with an
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
- What about primitives?Are there primitive types and object types? Is the
union of the two called just “types”?
That seems to be how a lot of folks refer to them, but I think it's a
little confusing. A primitive
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Jorge jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote:
On 19/10/2011, at 23:34, Brendan Eich wrote:
The other objection is that (ignoring some evil native APIs such as sync
XHR) JS has run-to-completion execution model now. You can model
assert_invariants();
f();
This is a really great idea, Kris! A few comments inline...
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
The topic of single-frame continuations has been discussed here before,
with the current state of ES.next moving towards generators that are based
on and similar to
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:19 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I agree with Andreas. The implicitly-called base level methods are not
meta-methods or (spec language) internal methods. They do not need their
own traps. They are base-level property accesses.
Well, certainly that's
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:dicts
I do not yet fully understand the rationale behind dicts. I have two
questions:
- Why does it need to use the same mechanism for looking up keys as
objects?
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
ES objects and their properties have always had a dual nature. They can be
used as both (semi-) fixed-shape object abstraction where the properties are
the member names and they can be used as open ended data
[snip]
Who are you, anyway?
Vague and useless by some estimations, apparently. If you have specific
metrics in mind for what defines a person then feel free to ask to them.
Never mind, then -- I just wondered since you did a pseudonymous
interruption of a specific conversation. Who
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 3:59 AM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
Whilst mentioning Object.createSimple, is there any plan for having
matching functions for all this declaritive syntax?
We do not want functions that mutate the
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:19 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 13,
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:38 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have started a little experiment and I'd like to share it here.
_Context_
We've been taught that objects are attributes and
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have started a little experiment and I'd like to share it here.
_Context_
We've been taught that objects are attributes and methods. Consequently,
object clients can inspect attributes (though these are most
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.comwrote:
[sorry for the incomplete message earlier - keyboard glitch]
Have you considered moving the spec drafting to a revision
controlled system, such as git? Michael Smith maintains an
annotated and hyperlinked version
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.comwrote:
...
Assuming, of course, that the exported XML is not completely
unreadable
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
But, some of them simply double the semantics
This reply's a little late -- just catching up on old threads...
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
I think generators are an excellent example of a feature that is well
prototyped (in FF JS 1.7+). I think
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/10/6 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:02 PM, John J Barton wrote:
The traits philosophy is that, when
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Van Cutsem
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:48 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks for the feedback, John.
I have to admit that at first I was also taken aback by the apparent
complexity of the syntax for
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Is this worthy of ES.next support? Or does it belong into a library?
The two concatenation approaches I know of are:
1. via +=
2. push() into an array, join() it after the last push()
(1) can’t possibly be efficient,
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:12 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function. Instead of returning
the value that the body of the function returns, it returns a
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:12 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I'm curious to know why unit-testing is the motivation. In most cases,
encapsulation should never be broken for sake of exercising a public api.
Private data and methods should do their work while the public api bears
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I've been playing with getters and setters for a little while and
there's one thing really bothering me: You can't store the value in
the object in a hidden way. Here is an example:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.comwrote:
module name from @name;
let key = name.create();
function MyClass(privateData) {
this[key] = privateData;
}
MyClass.prototype = {
doStuff: function() {
... this[key] ...
}
};
All it does
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.comwrote:
Maybe it could use more example use cases. What you're proposing above
could also be done by keeping the private value in a closure, but if you
need to hang it off the object this gives you a way to do that
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
One language feature from JavaScript that I miss are enums. Would it make
sense to have something similar for ECMAScript, e.g. via
Lisp-style/Smalltalk-style symbols plus type inference? If yes, has this
been discussed
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Sep 29, 2011, at 6:04 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 27, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 27, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
Out of curiosity is there any reason to keep
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
Hmm, I think I see what you mean, but the hole case is different enough and
anyway it has been in the language for 12 years.
True enough, but wouldn't you say it's
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
No worries, array extras are a great addition, we just need to keep
rolling.
Oh, no offense taken. I just meant to say that there may be
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 27, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Sean Eagan wrote:
I agree, but it seems like holes in parameter lists would be no more
rare than holes in destructuring lists...
[a, , c] = arr;
Could be.
...so it seems strange
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 27, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
Out of curiosity is there any reason to keep holes the holes around in
ObjectLiteral and ArrayLiteral?
No holes in ObjectLiteral.
Apologies -- I was thinking
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 9:36 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:06 AM, John J Barton wrote:
As a reader I have to parse the function
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:37 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 9:36 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
Assuming I am understanding the idea, then my description above is also my
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
We considered that, but generator is not reserved, and reserving it in ES6
requires newline sensitivity at least. Consider an anonymous generator
similar to the one you
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Jorge jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote:
On 02/09/2011, at 18:08, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
fibers turns node.js in to something the core team doesn't really view as
being node.js any longer.
we believe that it's more important to have assurances that your state
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
Just want to clarify that neither jQuery nor its selector engine Sizzle
have any occurrences of function arity checking via the function length
property. Both codebases have occurrences of arguments.length checking
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30.08.2011 17:41, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, let's up the topic. Seems there are no technical issues in the
I've been exploring private name objects [1] and I'm a bit confused by a few
things in the proposal, especially the Reflection example...
module Name = require @name;
let o = { };
let name = Name.create(foo);
o[name] = secret!;
...let a = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(o);for (let i = 0; i a.length;
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:02 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I've been exploring private name objects [1] and I'm a bit confused by a
few things in the proposal, especially the Reflection example...
The page was out of date, sorry. I've updated the page to reflect the
agreement
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Understood WRT the forgeability of strings -- I was more concerned with
the potential hazard of toStringing the values of an own-names array, only
to find out you have several keys with the string value undefined. Sure
It's serialization.
Or, it's a spec fiction to explain and codify the Web-visible effects
of serialization and deserialization without specifying a
serialization format.
As such, it seem like this may be a poor specification approach.
Translation to/from a static serialization format
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com
wrote:
2011/7/15 Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
Back to Mark S. Miller:
And finally there's the issue raised by David on the es-discuss
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Jul 15, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Except that you don't want to do that for host objects. Trying to
clone a File object by cloning its properties is going to give you an
object which is a
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Jul 15, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Jul 15, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Except that you don't
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On May 17, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
And of course this would also make it harder for IDEs and such to give
good first-class syntax highlighting here, because the syntax for this would
be ambiguous
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:46 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Evidence is good, but that's not exactly scientific. In particular, I'd
wager there's a material difference in this phenomenon between a language in
which *all* functions implicitly return and one in which this is only
[snip]
Anyway, now that I've confirmed my suspicions, I'm hesitant about the
private names proposal as described. The fact that declaring a certain name
as private affects _all_ property name lookups in that scope (all lookups
that use the dot operator or object literal syntax, at
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote:
Nowadays the clamp is there because sites use |setTimeout(f, 0)| when they
really mean run this at 10Hz and if you run it with no delay then they
swamp your event loop and possible render wrong (e.g. the text disappears
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Andrew Dupont wrote:
Right; I think Dean and I are saying that this would be the first time
obj.foo meant something different from obj['foo']. And to ascertain that
those two meant
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:55 PM, John J. Barton wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Nowadays the clamp is there because sites use |setTimeout(f, 0)| when
they really mean run this at 10Hz and if you run it with no delay
then
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Wes Garland w...@page.ca wrote:
It doesn't, so we're going to need a non-clamping alias. Perhaps an
[ugly] setTimeout ( ƒ, -1 ) ?
I posit that the clamping behaviour and timer resolution are
domain-specific (embedding-specific) implementation details.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Dupont wrote:
OK, you lost me.
On Mar 20, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Andrew Dupont wrote:
Right; I think Dean and I are
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles Kendrick char...@isomorphic.comwrote:
On 3/10/2011 7:33 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 3/10/11 9:58 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
1. tens of thousands of web applications that need to define a sorted
map plus perhaps billions of JSON messages per day
..
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Charles Kendrick char...@isomorphic.comwrote:
Not so - order-preserving implementations are backwards compatible with
non-order-preserving implementations. Just rev the spec, and like any other
versioned spec, developers can use the new behavior when they know
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
Second issue: Erik suggests (plan B) that null and undefined are
specifically special cased. I can't tell whether Brendan agrees with that or
wants spread to be legal on
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 1:09 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Thus the site's combined file won't be globally strict, however since a
lib is tested before a production release (at least I hope so ;), then the
lib's code should
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:25 PM, felix feli...@gmail.com wrote:
in the Names strawman, private foo at the top level has the same problem
as use strict at the top level. maybe there should be a general way of
delimiting a top-level lexical scope, so that pasting js together is still
relatively
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:
On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation
seen at
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM, felix feli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:56, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:47 PM, felix wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:37, Brendan Eich wrote:
For Harmony, we do not propose to standardize |for each|. Instead, the
iteration and array comprehensions
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
On 6/22/2010 5:28 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Most of the questions on Grammar were answered in this thread,
however, the question of U+0009 as a JSONStringCharacter
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
But that's the rub -- the JSON spec cannot be changed. It (intentionally)
has no version number
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
There are countless JSON parsers in the wild -- likely 1 for almost
every obscure language in existence, not counting all the one-offs. Any
number of these were written
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Kam Kasravi kamkasr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Andy
yes I was referring to the circular dependency issue.
Catch-alls would be useful for this, though it would be nice if
they were automated, eg returning a proxy until the module was used.
Doing it manually by
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/14 Ash Berlin ash...@firemirror.com:
On 14 Dec 2009, at 22:44, Mike Samuel wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:quasis
is a strawman for a concrete syntax that enables string
101 - 200 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
