Well, I think I understand what you're getting at: there's a sense in
which generators don't add the ability to do something that's *absolutely
impossible* to express in ES5.
OTOH, generators make it possible to express something that otherwise --
in general -- requires a deep
Follow-up: I updated
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies_semantics with a
more precise specification of the default behavior of all derived traps.
This should also resolve the double-coercion issue with Object.keys.
In summary:
- for has, hasOwn and get it's easy to fall back
Very much appreciated. Given all the nasty mutability in JS, I think
for the non-normative JS implementations you also might want to note
that it assumes that nobody has hampered with the primordial Object
object.
/Andreas
On 14 July 2011 12:34, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com wrote:
tampered, not hampered, of course...
On 14 July 2011 12:52, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
Very much appreciated. Given all the nasty mutability in JS, I think
for the non-normative JS implementations you also might want to note
that it assumes that nobody has hampered with the
I'm not sure the Array.prototype.concat algorithm (§ 15.4.4.4) is quite
right.
As far as I can see the length property of the result (A) is not
explicitly set anywhere in the algorithm so we are relying on the
[[DefineOwnProperty]] method of A to set the length for us when we add
indexed
I also reported it to es5-discuss
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2010-December/003851.html,
and got This is a bug in the spec.
I think [[Put]](length, {[[Value]]: n}, true) step should be
inserted to the end of this(like, pop, push method), is it correct?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at
Le 13/07/2011 20:52, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Hate to start another cycle of this, but if (trapping) proxies
can't be set to [[Extensible]]: false, then they can't be used to
Hi David,
2011/7/13 David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr
Hi,
Recently, I've been thinking about the structured clone algorithm used
in postMessage
The browser has to do a copy of an object and pass it to the message
receiving context. In some cases, if the object has a lot of properties,
it
Le 14/07/2011 16:23, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
Hi David,
2011/7/13 David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr
mailto:david.bru...@labri.fr
Hi,
Recently, I've been thinking about the structured clone algorithm used
in postMessage
The browser has to do a copy of an object and pass
+ Mark to discuss ES5.1 invariants.
I'm working on an implementation. It will be independent from the
FixedHandler one. It should be possible to combine both easily though.
I'll give a follow-up here when I'm done.
So, here it is:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:01 AM, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr wrote:
Le 13/07/2011 20:52, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
Hate to start another cycle of this, but if (trapping) proxies can't be
set to
(don't miss the second part of my response)
On Jul 14, 2011, at 5:21 AM, Andrew Oakley wrote:
I'm not sure the Array.prototype.concat algorithm (§ 15.4.4.4) is quite
right.
As far as I can see the length property of the result (A) is not
explicitly set anywhere in the algorithm so we are
On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Luke Hoban wrote:
I don't want to quibble about philosophical pedantry, but that's really all I
mean by my shyness about General Principles. They're strictly *harder* to
decide on than the problem at hand. It's too easy to lose focus and waste
time arguing
Le 14/07/2011 18:57, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:01 AM, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr
mailto:david.bru...@labri.fr wrote:
If that's the question:
-
var a = Array(1,2,3,4); // a.length===4
Object.preventExtensions(a);
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This appears to be a (possible) specification bug that first occurs in ES3
and which was not corrected in ES5.
I appears in concat and push. But no other algorithms. The problem occurs
when when a length value is incremented and then
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, David Bruant wrote:
In all the cases I can think of, where we want precisely the behavior of an
array, why not just use an array?
Of course an array should be used. I think that the current question is
rather can proxies as currently defined can fully emulate
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, David Bruant wrote:
In all the cases I can think of, where we want precisely the behavior of an
array, why not just use an array?
Of course an array should be used. I think that the current question is
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This appears to be a (possible) specification bug that first occurs in ES3
and which was not corrected in ES5.
I appears in concat and push. But no other algorithms. The problem
At the thread LazyReadCopy experiment and invariant checking for
[[Extensible]]=false on es-discuss,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.frwrote:
Hi,
Recently, I've been thinking about the structured clone algorithm used in
postMessage
Along with Dave Herman
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
At the thread LazyReadCopy experiment and invariant checking for
[[Extensible]]=false on es-discuss,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.frwrote:
Hi,
Recently, I've been thinking about
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
I think Mark and I are looking at Proxies from very different perspectives.
Agreed.
I want Proxies to to useful to create a perfect implementation of anything
that be specified as a ES built-in object or that
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
I think Mark and I are looking at Proxies from very different
perspectives.
Agreed.
I want Proxies to to useful to create a
Also note that the current editor's draft
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#safe-passing-of-structured-data has
some changes. Also there is some controversy about some of them
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12101
Something that isn't clear to me is which primordials
On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
What about the possibility of simply eliminating the range error and the
Uint32 restriction on the association between array indexed properties and
the length property. Instead replace it with a ToInteger constraint. This
is
Hmmm. This revision includes except if obtaining the value of the property
involved executing script. Now imagine writing a predicate for that in JS.
Among native-only objects in ES5.1, you can do it by using the original
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor, to first check if the property is an
Would we just be postponing all those same edge cases from 2**32 to 2**53?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
What about the possibility of simply eliminating the range error and the
Uint32
On Jul 14, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
I think Mark and I are looking at Proxies from very different perspectives.
Agreed.
I want Proxies to to useful to create a perfect implementation of
On Jul 14, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Host objects are part of the platform. A platform provider is free to
violate any part of the spec they like, and there's nothing we can do about
it other than to add tests to std test suites to make the violations obvious
to the
I think we should remove all the requirements around special handling
of functions that can run script. It can definitely cause head aches
for implementors, but as long as *any* script can run during the
structured cloning then this is a problem we have to deal with anyway.
The fact that scripts
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Jul 14, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
[...]
Absent other costs, that's a fine thing to want. But because of those
costs, it was never a goal of the proxies design.
I think several of us have been
On Jul 14, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Would we just be postponing all those same edge cases from 2**32 to 2**53?
No, because you lose precision adding 1 to an index to get length after that.
No bignums.
/be
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Do you really think it makes sense to allow new properties to appear on
non-extensible objects? Really?
Perhaps you do. Again, unless and until we get agreement to clean up these
(irregularities, inconsistencies, features, whatever you
On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
Implementations are free to add new built-in objects (see 4.3.28). Without
any stated requirements for such objects you have no guarantees.
On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Jul 14, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Do you really think it makes sense to allow new properties to appear on
non-extensible objects? Really?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Ambiguities:
1) When the says If input is an Object object, I assumed it meant 'if the
input's [[Class]] is Object '.
2) By for each enumerable property in input combined with Note: This does
not walk the prototype
Reraising this issue...
To briefly repeat: Decode, called by decodeURI{,Component}, says to reject %ab%cd%ef sequences whose octets
[do] not contain a valid UTF-8 encoding of a Unicode code point. It appears browsers interpret
this requirement as: reject overlong UTF-8 sequences, and
36 matches
Mail list logo
