On 7/25/10, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
The problem is that as long as ASI exists, one will often see working code
such as this, since it does usually
On 26.07.2010 4:11, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Let's not go in circles. I claim:
* The horses are long gone from the
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Mark's restricted production idea is on target, if we think it's worth doing.
At least in C or C++, I've seen code like this:
veryLongObjectName.someOtherVeryVeryLongObjectName.ridiculouslyLongFunctionName
I'm proposing that the same opt-in that makes function call a restricted
production also turns off semicolon insertion, making that code into a
static syntax error. For those cases where the language can't reliably tell
what I mean, I don't want it to guess.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM,
.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Rationalizing ASI (was: simple shorter function syntax)
To: Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
Cc: es-discuss es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Jul 24, 2010
message --
From: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Rationalizing ASI (was: simple shorter function syntax)
To: Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com, Mark S. Miller
erig...@google.com
Cc: es-discuss es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Jul 24, 2010, at 3
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
From: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
I see three tenable alternatives:
A. Remove ASI in some opt-in version, in full -- no error correction, no
restricted
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
The problem is that as long as ASI exists, one will often see working code
such as this, since it does usually work. This training of the eye is a kind
of
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, David Herman wrote:
In order to reliably remove this hazard, we would need to ban statements
from starting with '('. Perhaps we should consider doing so.
That's a REPL-killer: as is, you have to do unnatural paren-wrapping for
object-literal expressions at
Mark's restricted production for CallExpression attacks the hazard even more
directly, but apart from our aversion to restricted productions, what might
it break?
I don't see offhand what it might break. This question seems easy to
investigate empirically-- crawl the web looking for
On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:02 PM, David Herman wrote:
Mark's restricted production for CallExpression attacks the hazard even more
directly, but apart from our aversion to restricted productions, what might
it break?
I don't see offhand what it might break. This question seems easy to
On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Also, not another restricted production! But hats off to Mark for proposing
it, since it zeroes in on the hard case.
A good es-discuss thread (it's not like we have too many going at once) can
clarify what may seem murky or overcomplicated
On Jul 25, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Let's not go in circles. I claim:
* The horses are long gone from the barn.
* The mistake is easy to overlook even for JS coders who do use semicolons.
* The trade-off of banning ASI
On Jul 25, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Let's not go in circles. I claim:
* The horses are long gone from the barn.
* The mistake is easy to overlook even for JS coders
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Let's not go in circles. I claim:
* The horses are
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
veryLongObjectName.someOtherVeryVeryLongObjectName.ridiculouslyLongFunctionName
(longArgument1, longArgument2, longArgument3, longArgument4,
longArgument5);
Yes. Even in the absence of ASI issues, my inclination
On Jul 24, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Kevin Curtis kevinc1...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Also, is anything proposed for rationalizing ASI in Harmony.
I would welcome ideas. I was sad when we
On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
ASI has two parts: syntax error correction + restricted productions. The
pain users feel from ASI in my experience is mostly not from the
well-specified error correction part. It's mainly due to those infernal
restricted productions,
18 matches
Mail list logo
