On 18.10.2010 8:30, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
I understand you are arguing for noSuchMethod in addition to the
existing get trap, and I think we all agree that proxies could support
both get + noSuchMethod.
Yes. At least that already all agree is a progress. I glad to hear it,
since I'm also
(At last I've read this thread; I'll answer not for this exact letter,
but in general).
So, there are two backward compats issues:
1. Running an old code (with possible naming conflicts such as `let`,
`const`, etc) in a new (ES6) engines; thus, there is no new syntax involved;
2. Running
P.S.[2]: also it seems I missed something, can someone clarify -- are
`let` and `const` are removed from Harmony proposals since they
shouldn't appear in ES5-strict (in the recommendations for
implementations as I see) and since ES6 will be built on ES-strict?
P.S.[3] @MarkMiller: just a
In addition. The lookups start with the own properties of the objects in
question.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S.[2]: also it seems I missed something, can someone clarify -- are
`let` and `const` are removed from Harmony proposals
Thanks (that means I implemented it wrong before, will fix).
Dmitry.
On 18.10.2010 17:49, Mark S. Miller wrote:
In addition. The lookups start with the own properties of the objects
in question.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S.[2]: also it seems I missed something, can someone clarify -- are
`let` and `const` are removed from Harmony proposals since they shouldn't
appear in ES5-strict (in the recommendations for
On 18.10.2010 17:54, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S.[2]: also it seems I missed something, can someone clarify --
are `let` and `const` are removed from Harmony
Are you suggesting a) that struct types should always be value types, or b)
some sort of extension to the binary data spec that allows the creation of
immutable structs that are value types?
I'm afraid a) just seems unworkable -- compound binary data needs to be
mutable, and its sub-components
On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:01 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Are you suggesting a) that struct types should always be value types, or b)
some sort of extension to the binary data spec that allows the creation of
immutable structs that
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
You could use frozen binary data to implement the representation of a value
type, whose operators and literal syntax would come from its object-like
clothing (whether declarative via new syntax or using some Proxy-like
10 matches
Mail list logo
