Efficiency and optimization. If you're stupid enough to want to violate
those priorities in a public API, it's your own fault. But if you want to
optimize updating a collection (i.e. zero allocation update for a
persistent map) or increment a vector by another without having to create
an intermediate vector, you'll want to implement the assignment operator as
well as the standard math operator.
On Wed, May 11, 2016, 02:46 Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would you ever want to violate the algebraic properties of operators,
> such that `a += b` wasn't exactly equivalent to `a = a + b`, `a *= b` not
> equivalent to `a = a * b`, etc? I'm quite confident that any proposal that
> allowed for that would get tons of pushback.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 1. Yes, they would be inherited, but not on the prototype itself (it
>> would technically be parasitic). It would be modeled with internal slots,
>> so that the properties are themselves immutable and transparent, so the
>> only way to inherit would be via the class syntax or `Reflect.construct`.
>> Engines could model this similarly to prototypes internally, while still
>> appearing to conform to spec, since there's no other way to access the
>> function without explicit reference via a decorator. And if it's not
>> decorated, you can transparently fast path the calls automatically and
>> optimize the function at compile time for exactly the number of arguments
>> (any different is a syntax error, like with getters and setters).
>>
>> 2. I'm intentionally trying to avoid any semantics that would rely on
>> adding more values to the global scope. First, it's harder to optimize a
>> `hasOwnProperty` check. Second, when you allow properties to be dynamically
>> added, you make it impossible to lower `foo + bar` to a single instruction
>> if they're both numbers, because someone can change the Number prototype to
>> have one of the operators on it, and now, the assumption, previously
>> prevalent, is now invalid. Third, we shouldn't need to add 15+ new symbols
>> to accommodate a simple operation.
>>
>> 3. If it's pure syntax, you won't have the edge cases of `x += y` having
>> to desugar to `x = x[Symbol.assignPlus](y)` and so on. You just look for an
>> `[[OpAssignPlus]]` on `x`, and if it exists, call it as
>> `x.[[OpAssignPlus]](y)`.
>> Else, you check for `[[OpPlus]]`, and set `x` to `x.[[OpPlus]](y)`. If
>> neither exists, you fall back to the old algorithm. This can be easily
>> optimized by the fact engines only need to check this if the value is an
>> object. Numbers and strings don't have this slot.
>>
>> Note: If the right side has an operator defined, but the left side
>> doesn't, and if the operator checked for isn't an assignment one, the right
>> side's operator is checked and called. Or basically, beyond assignment, the
>> mere existence of a slot takes precedence over no slot, to make
>> transitivity easier with primitives. To clarify, in the below case:
>>
>> ```js
>> class C {
>> constructor(x) { this.x = x }
>> operator +(x) {
>> if (x instanceof C) {
>> return this + x.x * 2
>> }
>> return this.x + x
>> }
>> }
>>
>> assert(new C(1) + 1 === 1 +1)
>> assert(1 + new C(1) === 1 + 1)
>> assert(new C(1) + new C(2) === 1 + 2*2)
>> assert(new C(2) + new C(1) === 2 + 1*2)
>> ```
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 01:27 Kevin Barabash <kev...@khanacademy.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would prefer syntax + internal slots, since you'll know at creation
>>> time whether the object has overloaded
>>> > operators. It's much simpler for the engine to figure out, and it's
>>> more performant because you only need to
>>> > check one thing instead of worrying about inheritance, own properties,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Will operators defined on a class work with instances of a subclass?
>>>
>>> > Could += be a special case? i.e.,
>>>
>>> For sure. We could define `Symbol.assignPlus`, `Symbol.assignTimes`,
>>> etc. with `u += v;` desugaring to `u = u[Symbol.assignPlus](v)`. The
>>> reason why we can't do something do `u[Symbol.assignPlus](v)` is that
>>> there's no way to define a method on Number, String, etc. that would
>>> reassign their value.
>>>
>>> > it appears to me that overloading an operator multiple times (e. g.
>>> unary/binary plus operator) might become
>>> > painful, assuming that the semantics follow the same variadic approach
>>> that regular functions do.
>>>
>>> Another pain point is handling cases where you want one class to
>>> interoperate with another. In one of the example above methods are defined
>>> that allow `Point`s and `Number`s to be added to each other. In order to
>>> maintain the commutativity of `+` we need to define `operator+` /
>>> `[Symbol.add]` methods on both `Point` and `Number`. One potential
>>> solution to this problem is create `Symbol.plusRight`, `Symbol.timesRight`
>>> for all of the commutative/symmetric operators.
>>>
>>> I feel like this ends up making things more complex because there are
>>> more methods to implement and the methods have to be more complex b/c they
>>> have to do type checking when overloaded.
>>>
>>> Maybe `operator+` could work like the `@operator` decorator by calling
>>> `Function.defineOperator` behind the scenes. In this situation, instead of
>>> methods being added to classes, the `Function` object has well-defined
>>> methods that look up the correct function to call based on the argument
>>> types. `u + v` desugars to `Function[Symbol.plus](u, v)`. This is
>>> definitely slower than internal slots, but if we're doing runtime type
>>> checking in the method we may as well have it be automatic. My hope is to
>>> eventually use static typing (flow b/c I'm using babel) to remove the
>>> lookup cost.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're correct in that the operator doesn't do any type checking (it
>>>> dispatches from its first argument, but that's just traditional OO).
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016, 20:28 kdex <k...@kdex.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @Isiah: Comparing your syntax proposal to `Function.defineOperator`,
>>>>> it appears to me that
>>>>> overloading an operator multiple times (e. g. unary/binary plus
>>>>> operator) might become painful,
>>>>> assuming that the semantics follow the same variadic approach that
>>>>> regular functions do.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is, of course, unless you intend to handle all operator overloads
>>>>> in a single `operator +(...args) {}`
>>>>> definition. But then again, something like `Function.defineOperator`
>>>>> seems cleaner and suggests implicit
>>>>> (optional?) type checks with its second argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dienstag, 10. Mai 2016 15:25:32 CEST Isiah Meadows wrote:
>>>>> > Here's my thought, if we go with syntax.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ```js
>>>>> > class Point {
>>>>> > // constructor, etc.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > operator +(other) {
>>>>> > assert(other instanceof Point)
>>>>> > return new Point(
>>>>> > this.x + other.x,
>>>>> > this.y + other.y)
>>>>> > }
>>>>> >
>>>>> > operator +=(other) {
>>>>> > assert(other instanceof Point)
>>>>> > this.x += other.x
>>>>> > this.y += other.y
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > ```
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, May 10, 2016, 11:16 Brian Barnes <gga...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > A note on this from somebody who's entire existence seems
>>>>> dedicated to
>>>>> > > stopping as much stuff as possible from getting GC'd, the example
>>>>> below:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > >const u = new Point(5, 10);
>>>>> > > >const v = new Point(1, -2);
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >const w = u + v; // desugars to u[Symbol.add](v)
>>>>> > > >console.log(w); // { x: 6, y: 8 };
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Could += be a special case? i.e.,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > u+=v;
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > would call:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Class Point { ... other stuff ...
>>>>> > > [whatever the syntax is](pt)
>>>>> > > {
>>>>> > > this.x+=pt.x;
>>>>> > > this.y+=pt.y;
>>>>> > > }
>>>>> > > }
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > instead of desugaring to:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > u=u+v; // which would cause the creation of an object and
>>>>> > > // leave the other to be collected
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > For all I know, += might be doing such anyway in some engines, but
>>>>> for
>>>>> > > my stuff which is a lot of 3D math that could be a performance
>>>>> killer.
>>>>> > > It would be nice to be able to just add points and such, as long
>>>>> as the
>>>>> > > overhead is negligible.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > [>] Brian
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On 5/10/2016 10:52 AM, Isiah Meadows wrote:
>>>>> > > > I would prefer syntax + internal slots, since you'll know at
>>>>> creation
>>>>> > > > time whether the object has overloaded operators. It's much
>>>>> simpler for
>>>>> > > > the engine to figure out, and it's more performant because you
>>>>> only need
>>>>> > > > to check one thing instead of worrying about inheritance, own
>>>>> > > > properties, etc.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Also, it would be IMHO easier to read than a symbol (the computed
>>>>> > > > property syntax is ugly IMO). Using a different concept than
>>>>> symbols
>>>>> > > > would also fit better with value types whenever any of those
>>>>> proposals
>>>>> > > > make it into the language (either the struct or special syntax).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016, 04:03 G. Kay Lee
>>>>> > > > <balancetraveller+es-disc...@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > <mailto:balancetraveller%2bes-disc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Yes, I think exposing operators through well-known symbols
>>>>> is an
>>>>> > > > interesting idea worthy of more exploration because it's
>>>>> precisely
>>>>> > > > the purpose of well-known symbols to expose and allow
>>>>> manipulation
>>>>> > > > to previously inaccessible internal language behaviors.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Kevin Barabash
>>>>> > > > <kev...@khanacademy.org <mailto:kev...@khanacademy.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > And remember that decorators are essentially just a
>>>>> syntax to
>>>>> > > > apply functions to objects/classes at design time, so
>>>>> what
>>>>> > > > you're proposing is essentially some new global
>>>>> function, which
>>>>> > > > is going against the current trend and effort to better
>>>>> > > > modularize/namespace all these utility functions/methods.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > That's a really good point.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > It has been mentioned and discussed in numerous places
>>>>> over the
>>>>> > > > years, you can find more info on this with some casual
>>>>> googling.
>>>>> > > > For example:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983420
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Thanks for the link. I played around with sweet.js a
>>>>> bit over
>>>>> > > > the weekend. Using macros should work if we went with
>>>>> Python
>>>>> > > > style operator overloading. Instead of defining methods
>>>>> like
>>>>> > > > _ADD_, _SUB_ etc. we could create some well-known
>>>>> symbols, maybe
>>>>> > > > Symbol.plus, Symbol.times, etc.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > ```
>>>>> > > > class Point {
>>>>> > > > constructor(x, y) {
>>>>> > > > Object.assign(this, {x, y});
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > [Symbol.add](other) {
>>>>> > > > return new Point(this.x + other.x, this.y + other.y);
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > const u = new Point(5, 10);
>>>>> > > > const v = new Point(1, -2);
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > const w = u + v; // desugars to u[Symbol.add](v)
>>>>> > > > console.log(w); // { x: 6, y: 8 };
>>>>> > > > ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > This would require default implementations to be defined
>>>>> on
>>>>> > > > Object.prototype for Symbol.plus, Symbol.times, etc.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:38 PM, G. Kay Lee
>>>>> > > > <balancetraveller+es-disc...@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > <mailto:balancetraveller+es-disc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > Why not? The standard defines well-known symbols.
>>>>> Maybe
>>>>> > > `@operator` could be a well known decorator (assuming decorators
>>>>> get
>>>>> > > approved).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Well... you make something into the standard with
>>>>> proposals,
>>>>> > > > not why-nots, so in order to make that happen you
>>>>> need to
>>>>> > > > draft another proposal for well-known decorators. And
>>>>> > > > remember that decorators are essentially just a
>>>>> syntax to
>>>>> > > > apply functions to objects/classes at design time,
>>>>> so what
>>>>> > > > you're proposing is essentially some new global
>>>>> function,
>>>>> > > > which is going against the current trend and effort
>>>>> to
>>>>> > > > better modularize/namespace all these utility
>>>>> > > > functions/methods. And maybe a new mechanism could be
>>>>> > > > drafted for these new well-known decorators, so that
>>>>> we can
>>>>> > > > hide these new functions somewhere... but by now I
>>>>> hope it's
>>>>> > > > becoming clear that it's introducing way too much new
>>>>> > > > surface area for the language in exchange for one
>>>>> small
>>>>> > > feature.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > I haven't seen any proposals for macros, could you
>>>>> post a
>>>>> > > link?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > It has been mentioned and discussed in numerous
>>>>> places over
>>>>> > > > the years, you can find more info on this with some
>>>>> casual
>>>>> > > > googling. For example:
>>>>> > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983420
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Kevin Barabash
>>>>> > > > <kev...@khanacademy.org <mailto:
>>>>> kev...@khanacademy.org>>
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I should update the demo code to show the
>>>>> `@operator`
>>>>> > > > decorator in addition to
>>>>> `Function.defineOperator`.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Initially I started out with just the `@operator`
>>>>> > > > decorator, but that meant that each class would
>>>>> have to
>>>>> > > > have knowledge of each of the classes it might
>>>>> want to
>>>>> > > > interact with before hand. Having a separate
>>>>> > > > `defineOperator` function avoids this situation.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > It means that prototype style classes must be
>>>>> converted
>>>>> > > > to the new class syntax before operator
>>>>> overloading
>>>>> > > > could be used. Lastly, there may be some cases
>>>>> where it
>>>>> > > > makes sense to overload operators with existing
>>>>> 3rd
>>>>> > > > party code or built-in classes, e.g. adding set
>>>>> > > > operations to Set using operator overloading.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > It's also apparent that the `@operator
>>>>> decorator` part
>>>>> > > > of the proposal is an effort trying to address
>>>>> this
>>>>> > > > issue, but it really is not the responsibility
>>>>> of the
>>>>> > > > standard to try to define such a thing.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Why not? The standard defines well-known
>>>>> symbols.
>>>>> > > > Maybe `@operator` could be a well known decorator
>>>>> > > > (assuming decorators get approved).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Slide 15
>>>>> > > > from
>>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp shows
>>>>> > > > syntax for defining operators in value types
>>>>> which could
>>>>> > > > be adapted as follows for regular classes:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > ```
>>>>> > > > class Point {
>>>>> > > > constructor(x, y) {
>>>>> > > > this.x = +x;
>>>>> > > > this.y = +y;
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > > Point + Number (a, b) {
>>>>> > > > return new Point(a.x + b, a.y + b);
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > > Number + Point (a, b) {
>>>>> > > > return new Point(a + b.x, a + b.y);
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > > Point + Point (a, b) {
>>>>> > > > return new Point(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y);
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > > ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Having to define `+` twice for `Point + Number`
>>>>> and
>>>>> > > > `Number + Point` seems like busy work, but maybe
>>>>> it's
>>>>> > > > better to be explicit. What are you thoughts
>>>>> about this
>>>>> > > > syntax?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > Another thing is that, IMHO, currently there
>>>>> are too
>>>>> > > > much quirks/conventions in the proposal that feel
>>>>> > > > non-evident and non-flexible which is destined
>>>>> to trip
>>>>> > > > people over from time to time. It would be great
>>>>> to make
>>>>> > > > a proposal that's simple and don't include too
>>>>> much
>>>>> > > > assumptions.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Could you elaborator what quirks/conventions
>>>>> might trip
>>>>> > > > people up?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > Finally, I'm not sure about the current status
>>>>> of
>>>>> > > > macros, but last I heard of it, they say it's
>>>>> going to
>>>>> > > > make its way into the standard pretty soon (TM),
>>>>> and
>>>>> > > > macros can do much of the things overloading
>>>>> could, and
>>>>> > > > much more.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I haven't seen any proposals for macros, could
>>>>> you post
>>>>> > > > a link?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:55 PM, G. Kay Lee
>>>>> > > > <balancetraveller+es-disc...@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > <mailto:balancetraveller+es-disc...@gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I'd say it's way too early to ask for a
>>>>> champion on
>>>>> > > > this because just a quick skimming revealed
>>>>> a lot of
>>>>> > > > places that didn't add up. For example, the
>>>>> proposal
>>>>> > > > suggested that overloading is primarily
>>>>> targeted at
>>>>> > > > making it easier to work with user-defined
>>>>> classes,
>>>>> > > > but curiously a `Function.defineOperator()`
>>>>> method
>>>>> > > > is proposed instead of some syntax that
>>>>> feels more
>>>>> > > > tightly integrated with the class definition
>>>>> syntax.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > class Point {
>>>>> > > > constructor(x, y) {
>>>>> > > > Object.assign(this, { x, y });
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > toString() {
>>>>> > > > return `(${this.x}, ${this.y})`;
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > > }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Function.defineOperator('+', [Point, Point],
>>>>> (a, b)
>>>>> > > => new Point(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y));
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > The demo code made this flaw evident - it
>>>>> looks like
>>>>> > > > a giant step backward to define an instance
>>>>> method
>>>>> > > > like this, don't you agree?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > It's also apparent that the `@operator
>>>>> decorator`
>>>>> > > > part of the proposal is an effort trying to
>>>>> address
>>>>> > > > this issue, but it really is not the
>>>>> responsibility
>>>>> > > > of the standard to try to define such a
>>>>> thing.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > What I'd suggest is that perhaps you should
>>>>> rethink
>>>>> > > > your proposed syntax and redesign it to
>>>>> become an
>>>>> > > > extension of the ES6 class definition syntax.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Another thing is that, IMHO, currently there
>>>>> are too
>>>>> > > > much quirks/conventions in the proposal that
>>>>> feel
>>>>> > > > non-evident and non-flexible which is
>>>>> destined to
>>>>> > > > trip people over from time to time. It would
>>>>> be
>>>>> > > > great to make a proposal that's simple and
>>>>> don't
>>>>> > > > include too much assumptions.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Finally, I'm not sure about the current
>>>>> status of
>>>>> > > > macros, but last I heard of it, they say
>>>>> it's going
>>>>> > > > to make its way into the standard pretty
>>>>> soon (TM),
>>>>> > > > and macros can do much of the things
>>>>> overloading
>>>>> > > > could, and much more.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kevin
>>>>> Barabash
>>>>> > > > <kev...@khanacademy.org
>>>>> > > > <mailto:kev...@khanacademy.org>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I forgot to mention in my last email
>>>>> that I'm
>>>>> > > > looking for a champion for this proposal.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Kevin
>>>>> Barabash
>>>>> > > > <kev...@khanacademy.org
>>>>> > > > <mailto:kev...@khanacademy.org>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Hi everyone,
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I've been working on implementing
>>>>> operator
>>>>> > > > overloading and would like to submit
>>>>> a
>>>>> > > proposal.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I think operator overloading would
>>>>> be a
>>>>> > > > useful addition to the language. In
>>>>> > > > particular I think it would be
>>>>> useful for
>>>>> > > > defining operations on common
>>>>> mathematical
>>>>> > > > object types such as complex numbers,
>>>>> > > > vectors, matrices, and sets.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I've create a working prototype that
>>>>> > > > consists of:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > * babel plugin that rewrites
>>>>> operators as
>>>>> > > > function calls
>>>>> > > > * a polyfill which defines these
>>>>> functions
>>>>> > > > and which call the correct
>>>>> > > > argument-specific function based
>>>>> on the
>>>>> > > > arguments' prototypes
>>>>> > > > * Function.defineOperator which
>>>>> can be
>>>>> > > > used to define which function an
>>>>> > > > operator should use for the
>>>>> specified
>>>>> > > types
>>>>> > > > * "use overloading" directive
>>>>> which allows
>>>>> > > > users to opt-in
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > More details can be found
>>>>> > > > at
>>>>> > > https://github.com/kevinbarabash/operator-overloading.
>>>>> > > > The babel plugin can be found
>>>>> > > > at
>>>>> > > https://github.com/kevinbarabash/babel-plugin-operator-overloading
>>>>> .
>>>>> > > > I also have a demo project at
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > https://github.com/kevinbarabash/operator-overloading-demo.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > The design was inspired by some of
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > slides from
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > – Kevin
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>>> > > > <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:
>>>>> > > es-discuss@mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:
>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:
>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>>> > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
