Try sending it with `unsubscribe` as the subject and no text. Or you could always go to the link and do it from there. ;-)
On Thu, May 26, 2016, 16:28 Will <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
