# July 24 2012 Meeting Notes
Present: Yehuda Katz (YK), Luke Hoban (LH), Rick Waldron (RW), Alex Russell
(AR), Tom Van Cutsem (TVC), Bill Ticehurst (BT), Brendan Eich (BE), Sam
Tobin-Hochstadt (STH), Norbert Lindenberg (NL), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB),
Doug Crockford (DC), John Neumann (JN), Oliver
# July 25 2012 Meeting Notes
Present: Mark Miller (MM), Brendan Eich (BE), Yehuda Katz (YK), Luke Hoban
(LH), Andreas Rossberg (ARB), Rick Waldron (RW), Alex Russell (AR), Tom
Van-Cutsem (TVC), Bill Ticehurst (BT), Rafeal Weinstein (RWS), Sam
Tobin-Hochstadt (STH), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Doug
# July 26 2012 Meeting Notes
Present: Mark Miller (MM), Brendan Eich (BE), Yehuda Katz (YK), Luke Hoban
(LH), Rick Waldron (RW), Alex Russell (AR), Tom Van-Cutsem (TVC), Bill
Ticehurst (BT), Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (STH), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Doug
Crockford (DC), John Neumann (JN), Erik Arvidsson
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
We've done a bunch of updates to Object.observe in preparation for the
next weeks face to face meeting. The updates are based on feedback
from multiple people but more feedback is always welcome.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Patrick Mulder mulder.patr...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I am rather new to ES and this group, but I am surprised by this behavior:
When I do:
Array(4)
[undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined]
And when I do:
Array(4).join( * )
* * *
In other
Sorry about the echo, I didn't see the replies come in as I was typing
Rick
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
This upholes the Array forEach (and all other extras) hole-skipping.
The deck is stacked against for(;;) iteration in my view.
LOL, This upholds, of course.
I had hoped this was a clever pun :)
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
This upholes the Array forEach (and all other extras) hole-skipping.
The deck is stacked against for(;;) iteration in my view.
LOL
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Hemanth H.M hemanth...@gmail.com wrote:
var a,b = 1; sets b to 1 and a is undefined, this is more C
like semantics.
Where as a,b = b,a is more pythonis; Well then a,b=[1,2] should
make sense ?
/me also agrees to var[a,b] = foo;
It might be helpful to read
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Yusuke Suzuki utatane@gmail.comwrote:
For splice, this has already been reported as
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332
Oh, I missed it, thanks!! I've added myself to CC.
I've added a new bug for slice:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Le 24/06/2012 14:51, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
Instead of adding a new [[instanceofHint]] internal property, maybe the
[[NativeBrand]] could be reused.
+1 on that, which
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:11 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Firefox is partially built in JavaScript. This code is considered
privileged (by opposition to website JavaScript). More things can be
allowed to this JavaScript code.
In case the DOM is built in pure browser
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@norbertlindenberg.com wrote:
Good idea. A frozen array is more restrictive than a LocaleList (which is
extensible), but that's probably OK in this context. Or we could thaw it a
bit...
I was thinking the same thing, but was
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 8:29 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 19/06/2012 14:11, Alex Russell a écrit :
On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:46 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
Le 11/06/2012 12:30, Hemanth H.M a écrit :
[].forEach.call(NodeList,function(elm) {}) why that? Why not treat it
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@norbertlindenberg.com wrote:
The ECMAScript Internationalization API Specification currently has
normalization as an optional feature in collation. However, it requires
that the compare function return 0 when comparing Strings
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
In our experience writing large apps, the distinction is useful.
Undefined means I forgot to do something (e.g. set a property or pass an
argument); null means I tried to get something but it didn't exist.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
snip
I guess my concern is that there are significant existing subsystems where
null is distinguished from undefined or where null has a specifically
defined meaning that does not apply to undefined. For
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Thaddee Tyl thaddee@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
This is a different issue, but I wonder how badly the web would break if
we
made undefined a reserved word. Does anybody in JS really
holder and its value would be _otherwise_
undefined counts as well.
And for your information, I am not w3c and I use null frequently (the same
way w3c uses it).
Rick
Le 14/06/2012 23:16, Rick Waldron a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 12/06/2012 15:27, Hemanth H.M a écrit :
Would something like :
obj[prop] ||= NewProp
be useful?
There is currently a strawman proposal for the Default Operator, which
can be found here:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Felix Böhm esdisc...@feedic.com wrote:
Per definition, rest parameters always need to be at the end of a
FormalParameterList. I was wondering if this limitation could be liftet.
Consider:
function foo( a, b, ...others, c ) {
return [ a, b, others, c ];
}
snip
But I understand there are problems. First, what with optional params
after ...rest. And the second, how to parse it when foo(1, 2) called?
There was a lengthy thread about this, here:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-April/022256.html
Rick
ps. This is an
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Ryan Florence rpflore...@gmail.comwrote:
I use ||= very regularly in ruby and coffeescript, both of which have
default arguments.
I definitely agree that default arguments are a decent alternative. I
can't recall examples where it wouldn't be enough. Do you
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Felix Böhm esdisc...@feedic.com wrote:
Another nice place for this syntax would be destructuring: If you want to
get the last elements of an array, you might want to simply use
[...arr, foo, bar] = arr;
I really like that syntax. And in the end, that's what
, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: ||= is much needed?
To: Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
Cc: David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com, es-discuss@mozilla.org
I use ||= very regularly in ruby and coffeescript, both of which have
default arguments.
I definitely agree that default arguments are a decent
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Tom Ellis tellis...@gmail.com wrote:
ES6 draft specifies a new Array constructor called Array.from that will
essentially convert array-likes into arrays
This will have uses for the arguments objects too, for people that aren't
using ...rest in ES6.
Indeed
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Hemanth H.M hemanth...@gmail.com wrote:
The current spec draft is available here:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts
There are several formats, with and without change notations
Rick
--
*'I am what I am because of who we
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Hemanth H.M hemanth...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
How can one contribute ( as in code to ES or Javascript ) ?
It's been my immediate, personal experience that participation itself is
the best form of contribution. Be thoughtful, do research, think
critically, etc.
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
Don't you want to use arguments.length instead of function.length?
On Jun 9, 2012 6:53 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.com
(mailto:rfo...@gmail.com) wrote:
I just noticed strange behavior in spider monkey implementation of
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
jQuery.each(someArray, function(i, item) {
// this and item are the items in the Array
// i is the index
});
It's too late for jQuery to fix the order now. However, in the face of
arrows or bound functions,
On Monday, June 4, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Anton Kovalyov wrote:
If I read the code correctly, it means that the same method will have
different signatures depending on the function form: $(*).each(function (i,
item) { … }); vs. $(*).each((item, i) = { … })
I can assure you that will
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I now could be quite happy with the paren based cascade idea that Brendan
suggested last night. I'm surprised that no one has commented
wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:22 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
wrote:
array.{
pop();
pop();
pop();
};
path.{
moveTo(10, 10);
stroke(red);
fill(blue
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.comwrote:
On 31 May 2012 19:24, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
As I said in another thread, it's not going to happen because of the ASI
hazard.
Dave
Expand/link? How does this cause an ASI issue (that can't be
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
snip
If the predicate means what I think it should mean, I can offer some
examples of when I would do this. If the predicate means anything else
that's been advocated on this thread, such as fat arrow or bound, then I
Thanks Rick. For lurkers:
o.{
foo() // No semi
.bar() // Is this o.bar()? or .bar() on the result of foo()?
};
I've been following and have read back in the thread, but I'm not seeing a
how .bar() would be allowed?
Point me in the right direction!
Rick
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
snip
// Imaginary DOM library
DOM = {};
// This function accepts a function as it's second argument,
// what happens when its a bound function? I'd like write the
// API in a way that is friendly to both types of
Wouldn't this mean that fat arrow functions inherit call, apply
and bind as well? (I may have misunderstood this aspect)
I believe they do.
Yes, and both apply and call are useful on arrows, even though |this|
cannot be overridden. Arguments still matter ;-).
My previous
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
Could you post a corrected example? Thanks.
To reduce any confusion, I've posted the corrected code here:
https://gist.github.com/2847608
Rick
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
(mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
(mailto:erig...@google.com) wrote
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:42 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 31, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
The original API allowed me to pass an explicitly bound callback
(whether it was by bind or fat arrow) and have that binding take
precendence over a default behavior
Yes, you're exactly right - I hadn't realized this would be the behavior
-- but it makes perfect sense seeing it from a different perspective.
By different, I mean correct ;)
Rick
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On May 29, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
...
I appreciate this reason ;), but I like semicolon for another reason --
the parens suggest factoring out the o., as if
o.(stuff1; stuff2)
means the
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:22 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 29, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Same thoughts here. Regular devs (like me!) only see
[[DefineOwnProperty]] when creating a literal, and then there's no
observable distinction between these two in
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:22 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 29, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Same thoughts here. Regular devs (like me!) only see
[[DefineOwnProperty]] when creating a literal, and then there's no
observable distinction between these two in
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 6:31 PM, David Herman wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Independent of name, I'm trying to test for might sense this.
OK, but that begs the question. The problem is that your might test is
neither sound (as Allen pointed out) nor
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Anton Kovalyov m...@kovalyov.net wrote:
I have a question. Here (https://gist.github.com/9a6d60e9c15ac4239b3d) I
took a piece of existing boilerplate code and rewrote it using the new
syntax.
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com
(mailto:j...@google.com) wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com
(mailto:wyc...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'm not sure if this makes
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
The only usable+secure extensions I see are two, so we don't confuse
users with almost-identical syntax with quite different (when it
matters most, when under attack) semantics:
A. obj.{prop: val,
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:10 AM, François REMY fremycompany_...@yahoo.frwrote:
While we're at it, I had an idea to allow to avoid the function*() {}
syntax: why not yield [noLineTerminator] return ?
This approach expects all future readers of my code to look deep into the
function definition
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
(mailto:erik.arvids...@gmail.com) wrote:
[snip]
The problems with these is that no other dynamic language has these
kind of requirements. JS
# Override Mistake (Allen Wirfs-Brock, Mark Miller)
AWB:
- The correct people are not here for this discussion, defer to next meeting
# 4.14, Unicode (Norbert Lindenderg)
NL:
- Regular expressions
- Certain unclear, discuss with Unicode Consortium
see:
Thanks for filling in those blanks
-Rick
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Rick, thanks for taking these. I'll try to add a bit of explanation
where it looks like you had to be there ;-).
/be
Rick Waldron wrote:
# 4.10 Object.observe (Rafeal Weinstein
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
The prototyping efforts are appreciated, but can rarely be used in a
comfortable way. (Compared to, say, HTML5.) I've thought a lot about how to
feasibly use Harmony features in real-world code, but have fallen down every
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Luke Hoban wrote:
In the discussion of max/min classes at the March TC39 meeting, there
was support for minimal class syntax, but a couple concerns with
max/min classes in particular.
One category of concern is the
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Herhut, Stephan A
stephan.a.her...@intel.com wrote:
While exploring use cases for data-parallel concurrency in JavaScript
using the ParallelArray API (see
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:data_parallelism) I found
myself wanting better support
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Strager Neds wrote:
I agree with Alle
I don't see the point in adding String#contains if `str.indexOf(x) =
0` is equivalent (just like with arrays).
For sets, doing something like indexOf doesn't make sense (and a large
part of sets is testing for
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Domenic Denicola wrote:
Consider:
try {
doStuff();
} catch (e) {
console.log(uh oh, got an e, e);
throw e;
}
In Node and in all browsers I've tested with, this currently loses the
stack trace for `e`,
Aware that that typeof null has been rejected, but I was wondering if it
could be revived via the implicit opt-in path, eg:
non-strict, non-opt-in:
typeof null === null; // false
implied opt-in:
module Foo {
export function create( options ) {
if ( typeof options === null ) {
On 8 May 2012 12:19, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
module Foo {
export function create( options ) {
if ( typeof options === null ) {
return ... some default thing;
}
};
}
import create from Foo;
let default = create( null );
--
Wesley W. Garland
one frame to
another, wherein the first has opted in, but the second has not, then there
is breakage.
Thanks
Rick
On 8 May 2012 12:19, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com** wrote:
module Foo {
export function create( options
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I'm much more sympathetic to the idea of having *two* shorter-function
syntaxes, one optimized for methods and one optimized for non-method
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I read this, I assumed it was a reference to
this:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_literals
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
I think the colon was just a typo
Dave is not cc'ed and may have missed the responses going back to Tab's
first one, but I think there was no typo. Dave's example:
box = {
_value: 0
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
[snip]
Support is coming. I look at it this way. Some day relatively soon, ES6
modules will be in node. Soon after that they will start showing up in
browsers. Over the course of the next year, I bet you'll see
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Apr 11, 2012, at 1:02 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
What is a good term for functions that don’t have/use dynamic `this`?
“Non-method function” defines them by
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Wes Garland w...@page.ca wrote:
From a developer's POV - the terms bound/unbound makes a create deal of
sense, since already have bind, which effectively turns an unbound function
into a bound function. It basically completes the thought and makes it
easy to
Hi Adam,
Most of the methods that you listed are either already available in
identical form or the same logic can be created with existing methods, I've
noted each below
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Adam Shannon a...@ashannon.us wrote:
Hey all,
Scala has a lot of really handy functions
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 16:40, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
var arr = document.getElementsByTagName(a);
var externalElms = arr.filter(function(acc, item) {
(/^https?:\/\//).test(item.href
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 17:28, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
As in, its [[Class]] is Array and Array.isArray( nodes ) would
evaluate to
true?
No, it means that Object.getPrototypeOf
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2012, at 20:37, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 17:28, Rick Waldron waldron.r
On Friday, March 30, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Marius Gundersen wrote:
Indeed lexical |this| means you can't pass a wrong-this even via .call or
.apply. Thanks,
Isn't this a bad idea? Take for example the very common jQuery callback
method, which would look like this:
$(img).on(click, e =
[snip]
// Or maybe change the framework to better take advantage of arrows?:
$(body).on(click, e = $(e).hide());
As much as I would love this, it's not realistic. We're stuck with the
unfortunate burden of supporting a consistent behaviour regardless of
platform, ie jQuery will
I've been championing this syntax since Dave proposed it as the tri-lambda
syntax. Through this, I've exposed many JavaScript programmers of varying
experience (from fellow bocoupers to our JavaScript training sessions -
overhwhelmingly actionscript or ruby devs) to the three major pieces:
*Just
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
- Incorrectly using return for those that don't fully understand TCP.
As an illustration, consider this case:
element.onclick = (evt) = do {
if (this.alreadyWaitingForAjaxResponse)
return;
Yes, please. This looks and feels like the proposal from Dave Herman that I
supported (and enjoyed writing examples for) the most.
Very exciting to see this moving along and finding wider support.
Rick
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Looks good. Not
[snip]
I think fully TCP- compliant do expressions are pure win, FTR.
I second this, of course, based solely on the experience I had writing up
these examples:
https://gist.github.com/2013909
https://github.com/rwldrn/popcorn-js/compare/tri-lambda
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
Luke Hoban wrote:
The do expressions serve a separate purpose of changing the meaning of
return (but not break and continue)
Dave proposed at
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021000.html
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
But my primary point was just that in Rick's examples, there doesn't
appear to be any reliance on TCP at all. Had = supported blocks on
the RHS as in the original arrow proposal, all the code samples would
be
I just spent some time researching TLE and it appears that no data value will
ever have a space within the value itself - making a space the delimiter.
Anyway, most languages include a string chunk function that returns an array.
-Rick
On Saturday, March 24, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Russell
[snip]
There are likely issue with the above syntax. However, I can imagine
someway saying:
class Foo extends mixin(MyBase, enumerable) {
}
where mixin is defined as:
function mixin(directSuper, ...mixins) {
let effectiveSuper = class extends directSuper{ constructor(...args)
+1
This is reminiscent of existing bignum/bigint js libs, which is nice
because anyone that's used that lib will immediately get this and be able
to be productive.
See Also: https://github.com/substack/node-bigint
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Paprocki and...@ishiboo.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
+1
This is reminiscent of existing bignum/bigint js libs, which is nice
because anyone that's used that lib will immediately get this
sorry, s/that lib/those libs/
and be able to be productive.
See Also: https
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
The recent discussion “Using Object Literals as Classes” brought up some
key points, but the general feeling I got and agree with is this: we need
to get classes into ES6. As Kevin points out, even if it didn’t
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
The recent discussion “Using Object Literals as Classes” brought up some
key points, but the general feeling I got and agree
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
I would propose that the absolute minimal requirements would be:
- has a declaration form that uses the class keyword and an
identifier to create the class
- has a body that can include both the
[ ... snip ]
class Animal {
constructor(name){
this.name = name;
}
move(meters){
alert(this.name + moved + meters + m.);
}
}
Russ,
I'm trying to write up some supporting examples, but ran into a snag
regarding static properties. eg
function
In my opinion, because it is a point of contention, there should be no
special support for statics. It would be written exactly as you have it
above, or you could do
Sounds good to me!
I've taken my previous tri-lambda-syntax support example (
https://gist.github.com/2013909) and I've
Another option here would be:
class Snake extends Animal {
// Using new ; )
new(name) : super(name) {}
};
This could be visually mistaken for an object literal.
Rick
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Peter van der Zee e...@qfox.nl wrote:
As long as we're bikeshedding; none of your examples look as clean to
me as the original. If you're dead set on fixing this, try changing
the this keyword...
var a;
var obj = {
get a() {return a},
set a(v) {a=v}
};
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Just to contribute to this... er... fun-thread...
My team uses the closure pattern for our classes (i.e. no prototype
methods at all), since we value encapsulation. I can't imagine we're alone.
For my own
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 16/03/2012 23:00, Rick Waldron a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Just to contribute to this... er... fun-thread...
My team uses the closure pattern
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2012, at 18:12, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 16/03/2012 23:00, Rick Waldron a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 16
On Mar 16, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
wrote:
From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 18:40
To: Domenic Denicola
Cc: David Bruant; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Using Object Literals as Classes
On Fri, Mar
On Mar 16, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
wrote:
From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 19:28
To: Domenic Denicola
Cc: David Bruant; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Using Object Literals as Classes
On Mar 16, 2012
Axel,
Have you ever seen this?
http://www.broofa.com/2008/09/javascript-uuid-function/
I've been using this for several years
Rick
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
UUIDs are useful for many tasks. One cannot create good ones in JavaScript
without
Fat-arrow-only (plus do-expressions) looks like the minimal and likely winner
Based on my experience with translating real world code to try out this
syntax, it would be an incredible win.
IIUC, it also leaves open the possibility of (params) - {} in the far future -
after the world has
On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
Kevin,
Over the weekend I applied David Herman's new tri-lambda syntax to
Popcorn.js to see how it would look and feel:
https://github.com/rwldrn/popcorn-js/compare/tri-lambda
Why didn't you
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Herby Vojčíkhe...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
Kevin,
Over the weekend I applied David Herman's new tri-lambda syntax
to Popcorn.js to see how it would
A little different then the usual fare...
When interpreting (for the sake of implementation) how the arguments of
Array.prototype.slice should be handled: is it safe to assume that
arguments may not be defined and that all implementations are expected to
handle this the same way, as specified by
701 - 800 of 938 matches
Mail list logo
