Re: Can we call it ECMAScript 6, yet?
I think "further along" occurs when we have made final decisions on what is "in" and what is "not", because "not" starts to become "ES-Next", What I would be afraid of is that "ES-6" is over populated with want-a-be's features and starts to get a life of its own (remember our experience with ES-3.1 and ES-4) and now we have ES-5 and some initial confusion like we don't know what we are doing. There is no "rush" to name the next version (certainly nothing from the Ecma side). John In a message dated 9/19/2011 4:37:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, al...@wirfs-brock.com writes: On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > You're right that the safer course is ES.next until we're further along. When is "further along" in your view? > One approach is to not describe a features as "being in ES6" until after it first appears in an actual ES6 draft. From that perspective, what is currently "in" (or at least will be as soon as I upload a new draft) are let/const/function block scoped declarations, destructuring assignment/declarations/parameters, default parameter values, and the rest parameter. Probably a few other really minor things, too. Allen ___ 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
Re: Can we call it ECMAScript 6, yet?
On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > You're right that the safer course is ES.next until we're further along. When > is "further along" in your view? > One approach is to not describe a features as "being in ES6" until after it first appears in an actual ES6 draft. From that perspective, what is currently "in" (or at least will be as soon as I upload a new draft) are let/const/function block scoped declarations, destructuring assignment/declarations/parameters, default parameter values, and the rest parameter. Probably a few other really minor things, too. Allen ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Can we call it ECMAScript 6, yet?
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > I'd recommend sticking sticking with "ES.next" as much as possible. > Everything is still subject to change and there remains a lot of opportunity > for creating confusion by talking about what is "in" ES6. ES.next started to grate, for several subjective reasons and one more objective one: that we (TC39) will not add a version number in between if we can help it. You're right that the safer course is ES.next until we're further along. When is "further along" in your view? /be > > Allen > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > >> It appears that ES6 is ok: http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/capitol-js >> >> >> Rick >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term? >> >> -- >> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer >> >> a...@rauschma.de >> twitter.com/rauschma >> >> home: rauschma.de >> blog: 2ality.com >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Auto Reply: es-discuss Digest, Vol 55, Issue 67
This is an auto-replied message. I will be out of the office Starting on Monday Sept 19th through Friday Oct 10th, 2011 on vacation. I will no access to e-mail and voice mail and will answer urgent e-mails that same day. If this a technical issue please contact Matt Cooper(matt.coo...@oracle.com). If this is a management issue you can contact my boss Michael McGrath (michael.mcgr...@oracle.com) or Dave Robinson (dave.robin...@oracle.com) on my team . I will answer your e-mails when I return. Thanks, Michael Elges ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Can we call it ECMAScript 6, yet?
I'd recommend sticking sticking with "ES.next" as much as possible. Everything is still subject to change and there remains a lot of opportunity for creating confusion by talking about what is "in" ES6. Allen On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > It appears that ES6 is ok: http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/capitol-js > > > Rick > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term? > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > > a...@rauschma.de > twitter.com/rauschma > > home: rauschma.de > blog: 2ality.com > > > > ___ > 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
Re: Can we call it ECMAScript 6, yet?
It appears that ES6 is ok: http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/capitol-js Rick On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term? > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > > a...@rauschma.de > twitter.com/rauschma > > home: rauschma.de > blog: 2ality.com > > > > ___ > 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
Can we call it ECMAScript 6, yet?
Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term? -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de twitter.com/rauschma home: rauschma.de blog: 2ality.com ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Finiteness of object properties set
Le 19/09/2011 09:32, Jason Orendorff a écrit : On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: [...] Regarding infinite extensible objects, the only problem I see off the top of my head is: What would Object.getOwnPropertyNames return? Hmm. I wonder if this is a problem even for finite objects. I'm not sure it's the exact same problem, but it's an interesting question. js> var x = []; js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length"] js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length", "0"] js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length", "0", "1"] js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length", "0", "1", "2"] You see where this is going. There's a finite number of array indexes, and the array .length property is always less than 2^32. Of course on current machines we will eventually run out of time or memory, but what is supposed to happen when we cross 2^32? Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor creates a native array and, for each own property, it calls [[DefineOwnProperty]] on this array for an index n (ES5.1 - 15.2.3.4 step 4.b) This internal method is special for arrays (ES5.1 - 15.4.5.1). When crossing 2³², ToString(n) is not an array index anymore, so the property is added (as per step 5), but the length property gets stuck to its maximum (2³²). Since the property is added, continuing results in an infinite loop, the length property remains at 2³². David ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Finiteness of object properties set
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > [...] Regarding infinite extensible > objects, the only problem I see off the top of my head is: What would > Object.getOwnPropertyNames return? Hmm. I wonder if this is a problem even for finite objects. js> var x = []; js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length"] js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length", "0"] js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length", "0", "1"] js> x = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(x); ["length", "0", "1", "2"] You see where this is going. There's a finite number of array indexes, and the array .length property is always less than 2^32. Of course on current machines we will eventually run out of time or memory, but what is supposed to happen when we cross 2^32? -j ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
