On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
I'll tell you straight out that TC39 should pay more attention to
debugging.
How would that work? Debuggers are evolving rapidly, should we standardize
one now? TC39 has a good cohort of JS
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.commailto:
bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
In JS, it's a lot easier with
the VM support for filtering based on exception type
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
Depending on the design, this could be anywhere from only
errors raise exceptions to developers must supply a
algorithm to decide. Languages with a centrally controlled
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.commailto:
bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
Java is one example of a language that supports non-error
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Brandon Benvie
bran...@brandonbenvie.comwrote:
The magical quality that throw has is its ability to end multiple call
frames at once. Much like a second continuation channel, or the error
channel in a promise, it escapes past any number of listeners on the
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Brandon Benvie
bran...@brandonbenvie.com
mailto:brandon@brandonbenvie.**combran...@brandonbenvie.com
wrote:
The magical quality that throw has is its
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.commailto:
bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
The value of (2) is low but real.
I disagree. (2) is essential exactly because we depend
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
Debuggers provide break-on-exception as a valuable development feature.
Why? Because developers know that an exception is something the merits
special attention. If we want to invest in throw/catch
I'm trying to decode section 8.2.4
The Reference Specification Type
I believe that it is trying to say
obj.prop = ...
obj is reference base
prop is reference name
But base can also be Boolean, String, Number and env. record. I can't
figure out what a reference name means in these cases. I
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
...
I'r all in 8.2.4.1 and 8.2.4.2 (GetValue/SetValue).
Consider an expression like:
123.0.toFixed
This evaluates to a Reference value {base: 0, referenced name: toFixed,
strict: false}
(or strict is
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Brandon Benvie
bran...@brandonbenvie.comwrote:
Ah yes errors. It should probably have similar semantics to how
defineProperties works now...attempting each property and holding errors
until the end, no? Same for assign.
No, we want early errors and accurate
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:50 AM, John J Barton wrote:
...
But most of all we want this feature to land and not just spin around
here.
jjb
As Object.mixin or as Object.define??
Object.mixin
jjb
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
All the Object functions that operate on multiple properties are currently
specified using *pendingException* which reports the first thrown
exception after
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:23 AM, John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
All the Object
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:52 AM, John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:23 AM, John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:10 AM, John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:50 AM, John J Barton wrote:
...
But most of all we
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org
wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
I recommend allowing let declarations only in strict mode. This is the
simple, backwards-compatible
You might be interested in the work of Salman Mirghasemi on anonymous
function naming in JavaScript:
http://johnjbarton.github.com/nonymous/index.html
jjb
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Aron Homberg i...@aron-homberg.de wrote:
I implemented a JS parser last week (in JS) which specially
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:33 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
In this message, I'll be sharing some experience I've had with the Q
library. I have worked with it for about 7-8 months in a medium/big Node.js
application (closed source, so I can't link, sorry).
I'll be covering
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
In theory, one can use prototype properties to provide default values for
instance properties.
In practice instances are free to write on these values in addition to
using them as defaults. Then suddenly the 'default' is
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Isaac Schlueter i...@izs.me wrote:
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
var obj = {}
var foo = { ref: obj }
I assume that in your real life, you don't know 'foo' but somehow you
know that foo.ref is never used?
Well, you know that IF foo.ref is used, it's an
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Isaac Schlueter i...@izs.me wrote:
So, yes, you can certainly use debugging tools to find which objects
are leaking. But, there are times when you have a program where
something is leaking, and you read through the code, and see that
there is no possible way
complete UI.
Isaac could then solve his problem trivially by adding a debugger where he
would have called free and look at what other places in the source are still
holding references.
I hope for trivially but I'll settle for with relative ease.
jjb
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM, John J
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Isaac Schlueter i...@izs.me wrote:
It'd be really nice if JS had a way to explicitly delete an object.
I guess you mean ... a way to set all the refs to a object to undefined.
What do you folks think about a free operator (or something like it)
that would
On Oct 25, 2012 8:42 PM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
wrote:
The new thing this proposal brings to the table is the ability to mark,
from within your code, exactly what object you're worried about the
leakiness of. You also get very understandable error messages for
determining
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
I'm in the same boat. I see the attraction, very long run. Perhaps others
will weigh in.
I guess very few developers off this list know that [[Prototype]]
exists. That is, the special double square bracket syntax is not
Maybe this is already obvious, but if modules are tightly coupled to
files then the concatenation really has to be a container of files (eg
zip) and it's not part of the language. If multiple modules can be
declared in a single file, then concatenation is part of the language
and has to work
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:45 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so:
module A {
console.log(a);
export var x;
}
console.log($);
import x from A;
Does this print:
Good question.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:10 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 2012, at 4:51 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
...
Concrete example: Even and Odd modules refer to each other, but the import
statements occur after some initialization:
module Odd
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I proposed that we replace Program in this context with Script. This
is much less confusing and matches the most common manifestation of an ES
Program as an HTML script block.
+1 --
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
That is not my understanding, but I don't think it matters: that is an
implementation specific notion without consequence. Whether the
compiler treats all of the top level statements of ascript tag
+1 Tracuer uses 'Program' and that makes it too easy to forget that
the program consists of multiple Program-s
jjb
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I proposed that we replace Program in this context with Script. This
is
On Oct 10, 2012 4:20 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM, John J Barton wrote:
+1 Tracuer uses 'Program' and that makes it too easy to forget that
the program consists of multiple Program-s
jjb
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM
On Oct 3, 2012 12:39 PM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
wrote:
Would it suffice to allow cross-frame sharing of symbols via postMessage
and its structured clone algorithm? They're immutable, right?
I'm trying to follow this thread, but I'm having trouble understanding the
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Kris Kowal wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org
wrote:
I'm not sure what the problem is -- I read the old thread, and noticed
the
solution:
var global = Function(return this)();
Long ago this list had a subject:
How to retrieve the global object in strict mode?
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2011-February/003919.html
Roughly the conclusion was:
var global = (global, eval)(this);
However Content Security Policy
with a window variable redefined.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
Long ago this list had a subject:
How to retrieve the global object in strict mode?
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2011-February/003919.html
Roughly
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@chromium.org
wrote:
A synchronous observation mechanism provides
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
David Herman wrote:
On Aug 8, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I'm not yet convinced that Object.update should be restricted to own
properties. If you're only using object literals, then yeah, you want own
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a matter of definition and taste, but I don't think it is useful to
think of these as macros. I expect macros to extend the base language as if
adding new special forms, where these special forms are stylistically
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Ah, OK. Spitballing: A synonym of tag then, maybe? Alas, label is out. If
the term was, say, “mark” then one could conceivably say “mark function”
instead of handler.
Aren't these macros?
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Dave, for writing your blog post - it definitely cleared up some
things for me (macros in particular). If there were no module systems
already in place, I would definitely agree with static resolution.
However, it
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
Just define the order of execution between ES6 and pre-ES6 to run
legacy.js first.
You'd have to detect (before execution) whether a script was ES6 or not,
which is not practical, AFAICT.
As Dave suggests, my gut
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:47 AM, James Burke jrbu...@gmail.com wrote:
The discussion on what is allowed, in particular import *, could still
happen, but at least there would be a baseline that would allow for
them in a way that makes it easier for existing code to transition to
the new
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote a new strawman for Error stack which is now available in some
form in all major browser (if betas are considered).
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:error_stack
Feedback wanted.
You might
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:45 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/05/2012 21:18, John J Barton a écrit :
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org
wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
This is one of those cases where a small delta creates a very large
negative
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 28, 2012, at 10:03 PM, John J Barton wrote:
So let's rewind to my original question. If the discussion
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
This is one of those cases where a small delta creates a very large
negative effect.
Evidence?
If you look back on this thread you will see an example extracted from
the case that caused me pain
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Anton Kovalyov m...@kovalyov.net wrote:
FWIW I don't think it's even possible to use JSLint and 'with'. The parser
just quits as if it was a syntax error.
Yes this is correct.
Anton
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
John Tamplin
On May 28, 2012 2:53 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 06:37, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
A library writer creates an object in one scope and all of their tests
succeed. I use it another scope and my code fails. We are both using
legal
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps this discussion would be aided by a more concrete example.
Doh! Excellent idea. John, if you'd like...? (Otherwise I can do one.)
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:33 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
function app() {
var r = makeExample();
r.discover = function() {
console.log(I want to call this function);
return 1
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com
wrote:
On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
The only question is whether you get
an exception when you create discover() or when you call it. Your code
can
choose or not to treat
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
in adding a Reflect.setPrototype at this point, is there?
There is, just as there's a cost to Object.setPrototypeOf (the
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
in adding
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 27, 2012, at 5:13 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
The reason I asked is that use strict seems to be a subset but acts
like another version in some cases. In particular, if a library uses
obj.freeze
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
...
First rule of strict mode: use strict only affects code that is lexically
within the scope of the directive. It has no global effect.
My example contradicts this claim.
No, read the spec. You seem to be
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
* Traceur seems to be coming along nicely, but its alignment with the spec
leaves a lot to be desired. Destructuring just got fixed a few days ago, and
they have a class syntax you have to avoid to write
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:25 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Inside the catch, the catch-scope is first for reading and writing.
But the catch scopes are ignored for declaring new variables. So your
expectation seems to be the correct one.
That was my analysis as well.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote:
Will Reflect.parse be standardized?
Maybe. It's too late for ES6 and different implementations have different
concrete parse trees, I bet -- although perhaps they all agree on concrete,
there's still the question of
+1 too all this
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the goal of this?
If the goal is to get people to stop complaining, don't bother, people will
always complain. So long as there is a TC-39 there will be people that strive
to be armchair
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Object class reflection is frowned upon in Smalltalk for a reason. We want
protocols, structural conventions -- not nominal type tags. Or so I think!
Perhaps it would be helpful if someone made the case for typeof null
===
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Alex Russell a...@dojotoolkit.org wrote:
The new forms we're adding (methods and arrows) have the potential to
change this radically, causing a large percentage of functions encountered
by programmers to have binding. If that binding is hard-binding, .call()
Ok I gotta testify for the other side: use strict is not all roses. I hit
three problems with 'use strict':
1. I wrote the following code in JavaScript:
function register(otherWindow, local, options) {
var remote = Q_COMM.Connection(otherWindow, local, options);
remote.discover =
+1 High integrity engineering of components supports low integrity
integration essential for low cost adaptable systems. We have scripting for
the same reason we carpenters. We could build a house using a computer
milling machine but no one could afford it; we don't want JavaScript to
enforce high
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
What is a good term for functions that don’t have/use dynamic `this`?
“Non-method function” defines them by what they aren’t, I would like a
positive definition. I’ve considered the term “pure function”, but the
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Joey Schorr jsch...@gmail.com wrote:
Do I have constraints in my compiler (do I need to ship in a certain way)?
No, you just need to provide the source map file with your code.
This 'provide' step is a bit of a headache since it means you have to
coordinate
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I keep finding the frame problem overrated, specially in this case where
the case you are passing DOM nodes between frames is ... well, extremely
edge?
The frame problem might appear overrated if you
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Hello,
this is more a conceptual question post. But first some proposals that
circulated in the list:
1. Dynamic-this enabled fat arrow functions.
(this, ...) = expr
(this, ...) = { body }
2. ABC (apply/bind/call)
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Burke jrbu...@gmail.com wrote:
So, assuming Math has no dependencies (just to make
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Burke jrbu...@gmail.com wrote:
So, assuming Math has no dependencies (just to make this shorter), the
sequence of events:
* Load Foo, convert to AST, find from usage.
* Load Math
* Compile Math
* Evaluate Math
* Inspect Math's exported module value
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 01/04/2012 13:38, Wes Garland a écrit :
In a similar vein, I would personally like to have
zero-cost-when-not-debugging assert() statements, and am hopeful that
statically-linked modules might lead the way.
It seems
Allen's original post on this thread offered two choices:
1) extended object literals, (good building blocks).
2) both, (because class gives 80% and thus they complement).
Erik and Tab are arguing for
3) Min-max classes (we need 80%, not building blocks).
The current winner no one wants:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:30 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
baseUrl + ID + .js
Yeah, I've thought about auto-appending .js. I think you're right that
it opens up the possibility to be a little more abstract.
Auto-appending makes the API less abstract:the arguments must be
, specifically for script src=,
should be adapted with as few changes as possible for out-of-line modules.
Yes, even more so if ES delegates to another group for the rest.
jjb
/be
John J Barton wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:30 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.commailto:
dher
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:47 PM, John J Barton wrote:
And like require.js we will have difficulty resynchronizing the script
loading with document loading. For example, the above code may fail if the
callback fires before
In another thread Allen says:
we infer from array behavior that for-in was intended to iterate over
the data elements of an object and not the behavioral elements (eg methods).
Similar comments have been implied around the discussion of enumerable
properties. I personally have never seen any
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Kevin's analysis contradicts your assertion. Expression-bodied
functions with bound |this| (or var self=this outside) predominate in
the code he surveyed.
See thread headed by this message:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:06 AM, John J Barton wrote:
In another thread Allen says:
we infer from array behavior that for-in was intended to iterate over
the data elements of an object and not the behavioral
/be
John J Barton wrote:
I appreciate understanding why this choice.
(FWIW, I totally don't get why non-enumerable even exists).
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Just a bit related and perhaps of interest: Back when I believed in
operator overloading, I wrote a package to allow C++ classes to inherit
consistent overloading. The package consisted of templatized base classes
that defined say the binary + operator in terms of +=. The base class
parameter was
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Right. I also like Node’s idea of “global module names”, where a module
name is a location-independent identifier, for a module that might be
installed locally or globally.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'module
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
I guess you mean: a special form evaluated before the outer function
runs? Surely this form is not off-line.
No, before anything in the containing Program (up to the script
container) runs
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
But your question is probably more about what the default policy of the
System loader will be on the web. First of all, the System loader's baseURL
(should it be
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
David Herman wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:28 PM, John J Barton wrote:
equals makes sense when it is assigment:
module Bar = load(bar.js);
It's not an assignment, though. Which is why Brendan didn't like
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
I guess you mean: a special form evaluated before the outer function
runs? Surely this form is not off-line.
No, before anything in the containing Program (up to the script container)
runs
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
Second, we need a solution for asynchronous loading with run-time
selection. We use it now and as we move to much better network layers
we will use it a lot more.
Of course. This is what the
http
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
The module solution posted seems to have a top-notch solution for the
static case but the dynamic case is buried in the loader.
I
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
If I go back to my previous question, can we understand what should happen
here?
if (version === 1)
import y from 'lib1.js';
else
import y from 'lib2.js';
Again, no.
No, we can't understand
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
I
I've been reading a lot of nicely written JS in the Traceur compiler.
They use a very conservative Java-like approach with Constructor
functions and literal prototype property declarations. Sadly they must
include workarounds for Object.create:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 2:10 PM, John J Barton wrote:
Object.merge() that merges the own non-function properties as own
properties, the non-built-in-functions as prototype properties. (a
compromise of the two common
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 2:10 PM, John J Barton wrote:
I've been reading a lot of nicely written JS in the Traceur compiler.
They use a very conservative Java-like approach with Constructor
functions and literal
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 3:57 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 2:10 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
In ES.next, based upon
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:37 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 17/03/2012 00:36, John J Barton a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 4:18 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This is a piece of cake with Java's protected. It is much convoluted in
JavaScript. I think
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, methods on prototype require to have properties that are
public.
If you avoid prototype methods, all your attributes and private methods can
be shared by public method scopes.
I think you are mixing up
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 4:18 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This is a piece of cake with Java's protected. It is much convoluted in
JavaScript. I think this kind of problem being hard to solve in
JavaScript is the reason why so many frameworks like Node.js make the
choice to
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On this point, I probably should
define what I mean by declarative. I consider code to be declarative, if
a human (or an appropriately programmed machine) can understand its meaning
without actually (or
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Jason Orendorff
jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
For the surveyed code,
the percentage of function expressions which do not reference this ranges
between 31% and 87%. About half of all function expressions are suitable
for conversion to
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
