Perhaps it's a bit late... but I'd like to discuss the proxy object.
Notably: why no way to define a hook for when a property is called as a
function.
I think I understand *why* there isn't one.. I presume because how a
property is used (I.e. as a property or called as a function) is a level
deeper than the recalling of said property. If at all possible, I think it
would be incredibly useful. This may be outside the intended purpose of
the proxy object, but a proxy for the purposes of a middleware (I hate that
word too) that is more dynamic would be perfect for adaptors etc...
Perhaps it's not feasible, because the proxy hook is best applied at the
point when the property's definition, which brings me to my next
suggestion....
What about the ability to alter / define the configuration of a scope
variable, like those on objects with defineProperty... but with simple
scope variables... I presume most implementations define scope variables
much like object properties internally.
On Dec 14, 2016 2:56 PM, <es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org> wrote:
Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to
es-discuss@mozilla.org
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
es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
es-discuss-ow...@mozilla.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of es-discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Ranges (Jeremy Martin)
2. Re: Ranges (Alexander Jones)
3. Re: Destructuring object outside of var declaration (Jeff Walden)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeremy Martin <jmar...@gmail.com>
To: Hikaru Nakashima <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:55:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Ranges
While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does
have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an
expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I understand.
> I hope to find a good form of literals.
>
> Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following
> cases?
>
> ```
> for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... }
> vs
> for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... }
> ```
>
> If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests.
>
> 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <andyearns...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on
>> any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this
>> to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible.
>>
>> It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an
>> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
>> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
>>
>> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical
>> to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I understood it.
>>> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
>>> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
--
Jeremy Martin
661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853>
http://devsmash.com
@jmar777
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexander Jones <a...@weej.com>
To: Hikaru Nakashima <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com>, Jeremy Martin <
jmar...@gmail.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:28:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Ranges
IMO this is quite unnecessary syntax sugar. Python has everything you could
need here without special syntax.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 16:55, Jeremy Martin <jmar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does
> have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an
> expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO.
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima <
> oao.hikaru....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I understand.
> I hope to find a good form of literals.
>
> Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following
> cases?
>
> ```
> for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... }
> vs
> for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... }
> ```
>
> If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests.
>
> 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <andyearns...@gmail.com>:
>
> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on
> any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this
> to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible.
>
>
> It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an
> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
>
>
> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical
> to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Oh, I understood it.
> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Martin
> 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853>
> http://devsmash.com
> @jmar777
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> es-discuss mailing list
>
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Walden <jwalden...@mit.edu>
To: Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <
al...@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: Nathan Wall <nathan.w...@live.com>, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com>,
"es-discuss@mozilla.org" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:55:46 -0800
Subject: Re: Destructuring object outside of var declaration
On 11/13/2016 12:33 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote:
> Okay. Is it a spec bug then? Throwing a ReferenceError is surprising and
odd IMHO.
I think so -- having different sorts of early errors makes it a little less
clear what sort of error should be thrown when two early errors of
different types are in the same script. Last I knew, the spec was
basically just waiting on someone to experiment with pulling the trigger to
make everything a SyntaxError. I've been meaning to do that for awhile,
but it's not a high priority.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
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
