I may be late here, but what's wrong with
firstArray = firstArray.concat(secondArray); ?
If there are still problems I would say no magic method can solve them,
isn't it?
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
On 07/27/2011 01:26 PM, John-David Dalton wrote:
to avoid apply limits is actually trivial:
var fromCharCode = (function ($fromCharCode, MAX_LENGTH) {
return function fromCharCode(code) {
typeof code == number (code = [code]);
for (var
result = [],
i = 0,
length = code.length;
I like Underscore (http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/). Should we
standardize it? Not yet. But it points in the right direction to avoid OOP
single-inheritance traps: functional programming, generic for all containers
functions.
I love true generic functions (as in “multiple
On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I like Underscore (http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/). Should we
standardize it? Not yet. But it points in the right direction to avoid OOP
single-inheritance traps: functional programming, generic for all containers
functions.
On Jul 29, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I like Underscore (http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/). Should we
standardize it? Not yet. But it points in the right direction to avoid OOP
single-inheritance traps: functional
I like Underscore (http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/). Should we
standardize it? Not yet. But it points in the right direction to avoid OOP
single-inheritance traps: functional programming, generic for all
containers functions.
I love true generic functions (as in “multiple
I am wondering if you discussed the typeof null proposal?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 28 July 2011 20:34, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr wrote:
Le 28/07/2011 19:52, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 28 July 2011 10:35, David Bruant
On Jul 29, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
I am wondering if you discussed the typeof null proposal?
No, that was accepted back in January, IIRC. We have to see how big a migration
burden it is, still, but that can't be simulated. We need implementations and
user testing.
/be
On 29 July 2011 19:08, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
I did not mean multimethods (generic functions is a confusing term, since
it also means functions that work for parameters of any time; also generic
suggests generics, i.e. type parameters).
Generic is a heavily overloaded term.
I could make any day that week except Tuesday. Wednesday would be best for
me.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Nebojša Ćirić c...@google.com wrote:
Hi all,
some topics were left unreviewed at the last face-to-face meeting. I would
like to organize another F2F meeting/teleconference at
On 07/29/2011 05:01 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I may be late here, but what's wrong with
firstArray = firstArray.concat(secondArray); ?
If there are still problems I would say no magic method can solve them, isn't
it?
That creates a new array rather than mutate the array originally
On 07/29/2011 05:22 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
to avoid apply limits is actually trivial
More or less, yes.
But it requires the developer to anticipate the concern in advance that the
elements being appended might consume all available stack space. I don't think
most developers think at
On Jul 29, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Kevin Reid wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 15:20, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
Date: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:21 PM
== Handler access to proxies ==
[...]
Conclusion: no
On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Thanks, you caught a blatant inconsistency in our reasoning. We used Sean's
message (linked above) as a reason to remove receiver, that
(but at the end of the above line instead of that, of course.)
Sean wrote that message assuming both
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Reid kpr...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 19:57, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
The good news: the proxy traps as proposed are unchanged. Hats off to Tom
and Mark for nailing that API and minimizing its parameterization!
Proxies
15 matches
Mail list logo