On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should be the rules for coercing non-object 'this' values?
In a previous thread we've already settled that ES3.1-strict will not
coerce null or undefined 'this' values. In order to do this, we're
going to migrate the
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to restrict 'arguments' in strict functions?
anticipation of ES-H-strict -- prohibit co-existence with splat
arguments.callee
joining? frozen?
If we were making the jump from ES3 directly to ES-Harmony, we
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to restrict 'arguments' in strict functions?
anticipation of ES-H-strict -- prohibit co-existence with splat
arguments.callee
joining?
On Sep 9, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Mark S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should strict 'arguments' be an array? I know we've over this before
and that strong reasons were presented why we couldn't do this.
But on
the ES3.1 phone call this
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need to spec Function.prototype.bind in our funny spec language.
Anyone care to contribute a draft?
The simplest way to specify this
Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need to spec Function.prototype.bind in our funny spec language.
Anyone care to contribute a draft?
The simplest way to specify this would be in terms of the rest of the
ES3.1 spec,
On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:47 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
As an alternative to saying the original bindings of... in the spec,
we could provide a way to actually get the original bindings in
ECMAScript
code. This is independently useful, e.g. for secure subset run-times.
Have you read
7 matches
Mail list logo
