unsubscribe On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:21 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of es-discuss digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Observing whether a function is strict (Claude Pache) > 2. Reflect.create() (even stensberg) > 3. Suggestion: "Object.hasOwnProperty" (doodad-js Admin) > 4. Re: Reflect.create() (Bergi) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Claude Pache <[email protected]> > To: Mark Miller <[email protected]> > Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <[email protected]>, es-discuss < > [email protected]> > Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:55:13 +0200 > Subject: Re: Observing whether a function is strict > > Le 26 mai 2016 à 17:02, Mark Miller <[email protected]> a écrit : > > I don't get it. What is being removed? > > > A way to observe (almost surely?) that a given ECMAScript function is > strict. > > What purpose does this accomplish? > > > As I've said, maybe nothing to care about. That strange capability of > `Function#arguments` just presented itself to my mind, and I really didn’t > thought whether that has any consequence. > > —Claude > > > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Claude Pache <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Le 26 mai 2016 à 13:23, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Claude Pache <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > Le 26 mai 2016 à 10:43, G. Kay Lee < >>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>> > >>> > I was under the impression that strict mode is a (temporary) >>> workaround to get rid of unwanted bad parts of the language without >>> instantly breaking anything. The long term question thus should be: do we >>> have a timeline on the final removal of non-strict behavior from the >>> language, and establish the "strict mode" as the one and only standard >>> behavior. If so, then introducing any additional language feature to help >>> detecting strict/non-strict is certainly not ideal. >>> >>> AFAIK, there is no plan to remove non-strict mode. >>> >>> And to be clear about my intentions, what I have in the back of my head >>> was certainly not "introducing any additional language feature to help >>> detecting strict/non-strict" (yuck!), but whether it makes sense to think >>> about a possible way to remove that leak from `Function#arguments` and >>> `Function#caller`. But it would be premature to consider that issue without >>> *at least* an answer to my original question: Are there other ways...? >>> >> >> Hi Claude, what do you mean by "remove that leak"? Hypothetically, let's >> say you had such a test and that it was reliable. How would you use it >> remove the leak? (This is probably also the best way to clarify what >> precisely you mean by removing the leak.) >> >> >> Maybe that "leak", namely observing whether a function is strict, is not >> something to care about. >> >> But here is what I think to be a possible way to remove it: Because >> `Function#arguments` and `Function#caller` do return `null` for sloppy >> functions in some circumstances (namely, when the function is not found in >> the call stack), let them always return `null` for non-sloppy functions. >> >> —Claude >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: even stensberg <[email protected]> > To: es-discuss <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 19:42:10 +0200 > Subject: Reflect.create() > Before going further, please note that feedback will be on Github, since > we want to avoid spamming in ES Discuss in order to provide a much cleaner > system. > > I wrote up a draft about how I'd like this to look at: > https://github.com/ev1stensberg/proposal-reflect-or, please note that I > humbly accept any changes or opinions of this via Github, not here. This is > because ES-Discuss is a bit messy when it comes to feedback, I.E that I get > a mail every 30th minute of a one line comment. If it's absolutely > necessary, drop a comment here, but I strongly advice you to try out GitHub > issues. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: doodad-js Admin <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:26:52 -0400 > Subject: Suggestion: "Object.hasOwnProperty" > > Hi, > > > > I think to create "Object.hasOwnProperty". Often, an object is used to > store key/value pairs and most users forget that “hasOwnProperty” can be > also be a key. Objects created by “Object.create(null)” don’t inherit this > function and users get lost when they get such an object from a library or > their own code. > > > > Claude Petit > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bergi <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:21:56 +0200 > Subject: Re: Reflect.create() > even stensberg wrote: > > I wrote up a draft about how I'd like this to look at: >> https://github.com/ev1stensberg/proposal-reflect-or >> > > I'm sorry for the harsh tone, but that's not a draft. > > I tried to read [your medium post]( > https://medium.com/@ev1stensberg/iteration-in-javascript-needs-a-tectonic-shift-a74b6554bbd7) > but failed to understand anything (and didn't get any point you were going > to make). As such, the "Reason" for this proposal is completely missing to > me. > > While I fail to understand what your proposal is all about, it seems to > have something to do with defaulting values. And great, you've even asked > the question "How is this different to Default Param in ES6 / the OR > operator?" yourself in that text - but there is no answer?! > > The next thing that completely escaped me is your API description > > | `Reflect.create(target, value, [DefaultValue])` > | > | Creates a Reflect, which is not an object. > > Uh, what? What is "a Reflect"? > > > And the first thing that came to my mind after I read what you're talking > about is that you should rename the proposal. `Reflect.create` will remind > everyone of `Object.create` (given that some of the methods are duplicated > between `Object` and `Reflect`) and one would expect that they do the same > or at least have a similar purpose. > You seem to be proposing something completly different that has nothing to > do with creation. > > Kind regards, > Bergi > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
