Domenic Denicola wrote:
If we’re making up new syntax, I think this would be much nicer if
“private.x” were spelled “this.@x” and “private(x)” were spelled “x.@”
+1 and this is not a minor point.
Also, I don’t see why constructors need to use the “private.x” syntax
whereas other methods
Thaddee Tyl wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Dude, do you even read the spec?
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-15.14.5.4
So this is just the wiki lacking some updates?
I've been stewing on this some more, and I realized something potentially
very interesting. If we use weakmaps in the manner specified by Kevin (with
Mark's help), I think we've very nearly added nominal typing to classes.
Assuming this privacy behavior was tied to classes, and assuming only
On 17 January 2013 21:08, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
Actually, I don't see why this should have a measurable impact on
performance in practice. The generic case is dog-slow for JavaScript
anyway, what matters is how easy it is to specialise for the types
Le 18/01/2013 06:47, Russell Leggett a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com
mailto:khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems as if this approach to private class members also allows
us to describe private methods in a convenient way. Private
methods can
Kevin, could you do an alterna-gist as Domenic proposes? Of course there's
much more at stake than syntax, but it would help.
I've updated my gist to clarify Domenic's second point, but I'll let him
maintain his fork for the @ syntax variation.
{ Kevin }
I've been stewing on this some more, and I realized something potentially
very interesting. If we use weakmaps in the manner specified by Kevin (with
Mark's help),
Um, that should be Mark (with Kevin's itty-bitty help). : )
{ Kevin }
___
es-discuss
Hi Claus,
I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal, but could you not achieve it
by simply doing:
var target = ...; // might be frozen
var p = Proxy( Object.create(target), handler);
?
Cheers,
Tom
2013/1/17 Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com
The proxy target is important because it
It doesn't seem reasonable to maintain two versions of the proposals as
they become specifications.
My first thought is that the simplest possible strategy is to update
harmony proposal pages (on the wiki) with a line at the top that indicates
that the proposal is now in the spec draft. This is
Le 18/01/2013 18:58, Rick Waldron a écrit :
It doesn't seem reasonable to maintain two versions of the proposals
as they become specifications.
My first thought is that the simplest possible strategy is to update
harmony proposal pages (on the wiki) with a line at the top that
indicates that
As it turns out, my suggestion above had already been used (at least) once
before—Allen marked the destructuring proposal similarly. I've gone ahead
and updated the following:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:spread
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:rest_parameters
Cool, check this:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-January/028270.html :)
That's not all of them, but I'll go through it all again for anything I
missed (unless you want to list any here, which would be fantastic)
Rick
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:08 PM, David Bruant
I think part of the confusion is that, from what I understand, harmony refers
to things that are agreed upon by all TC39 members, or at least were at one
time. But this does not imply it being in ES6.
That is, much confusion I've seen on the internet stems from people assuming
harmony means
No. Harmony refers to the agreed post-ES5 trajectory of the
language. It was part of the harmonious agreement to accept ES3.1 as
ES5. ES6 and ES7 are both steps of ES-Harmony.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Brandon Benvie
bran...@brandonbenvie.com wrote:
My understanding is that harmony
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
What was Harmonious prospectively can still be Harmonious in ES6 (as in
ES5, remember, Harmony started in July 2008). The wiki harmony: namespace
remains.
I agree with the idea already in practice that Rick cited. Big
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
No. Harmony refers to the agreed post-ES5 trajectory of the
language. It was part of the harmonious agreement to accept ES3.1 as
ES5. ES6 and ES7 are both steps of ES-Harmony.
I believe a good example is
Hi guys
I am playing with web audio api and mozilla audio api but I got frustrated
about so much html5 potential wasted due to infinite codecs deadlock support in
browsers holding progress back for so long.
This even resulted to people writing codecs purely in JS.
Unfortunately performance is
Hi Tom,
I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal, but could you not achieve it
by simply doing:
var target = ...; // might be frozen
var p = Proxy( Object.create(target), handler);
Ah, too obvious for me, thanks!
Also, proxy wrappers often modify functions, which tend to be on
a
Hi Ladislav,
Le 18/01/2013 22:51, neuralll a écrit :
Hi guys
I am playing with web audio api and mozilla audio api but I got frustrated
about so much html5 potential wasted due to infinite codecs deadlock support in
browsers holding progress back for so long.
This even resulted to people
19 matches
Mail list logo
