Re: Wanted: standard Array function to append an array's

2011-07-29 Thread Andrea Giammarchi
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:

Re: Wanted: standard Array function to append an array's elements to another array

2011-07-29 Thread Andrea Giammarchi
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;

Re: Adding methods to {Array,String}.prototype

2011-07-29 Thread Axel Rauschmayer
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

Re: Adding methods to {Array,String}.prototype

2011-07-29 Thread Brendan Eich
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.

Re: Adding methods to {Array,String}.prototype

2011-07-29 Thread Brendan Eich
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

Re: Adding methods to {Array,String}.prototype

2011-07-29 Thread Axel Rauschmayer
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

Re: July TC39 meeting notes, day 1

2011-07-29 Thread Tom Schuster
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

Re: July TC39 meeting notes, day 1

2011-07-29 Thread Brendan Eich
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

Re: Adding methods to {Array,String}.prototype

2011-07-29 Thread Andreas Rossberg
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.

Re: i18n meeting mid August @ Google

2011-07-29 Thread Mark S. Miller
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

Re: Wanted: standard Array function to append an array's

2011-07-29 Thread Jeff Walden
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

Re: Wanted: standard Array function to append an array's elements to another array

2011-07-29 Thread Jeff Walden
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

Re: July TC39 meeting notes, day 1

2011-07-29 Thread Brendan Eich
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

Re: July TC39 meeting notes, day 1

2011-07-29 Thread Brendan Eich
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

Re: July TC39 meeting notes, day 1

2011-07-29 Thread Mark Miller
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