On 25 December 2011 13:26, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Paul Irish did a code search for that:
http://www.google.com/codesearch#W9JxUuHYyMg/trunk/src/flag-definitions.hq=harmony%20package:http://v8\.googlecode\.coml=109
To elaborate, the --harmony flag currently activates the
On 27 December 2011 16:15, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
-
var m = new Map();
var key = {};
m.set(key, 37);
WeakMap.prototype.get.call(m, key); // ?
-
Currently Chrome canary says illegal access.
That is a bug. It should throw TypeError.
/Andreas
On 29 December 2011 18:48, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The existence of WeakMap/Map implies the
existence of an internal object identify hash value.
Why? AFAICT, there is nothing currently requiring these collections to
be implemented as hash tables in particular. And there
On 30 December 2011 00:00, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
{__proto__:...} having a magic meaning is per code, and so can and should be
conditioned on mode. I think it should only be allowed to be magic in
non-strict mode.
What about {[__proto__]: ...} then?
/Andreas
It sure would be nice to put away with additional language modes. However:
Pragmatically, I don't see how wrapping your program into a module is
more convenient then putting a `use' directive on top. And your
additional proposal for use module is kind of admitting that it's
actually worse, isn't
Hello all,
I recently ran into a situation where I would like to obtain a
substring from the beginning until the first encounter with another
substring. This promoted me to write a simple function, called until
and I wondered if it would be something to add with the other string
extras for
On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
Currently, there one can override the built-in operators via elementGet
(getting via []), elementSet (setting via []) and elementDelete (`delete`
operator).
Currently, there one can override the built-in operators via elementGet
(getting via []), elementSet (setting via []) and elementDelete (`delete`
operator). Wouldn’t it make sense to also provide elementIn (`in` operator)?
Probably. It may depend upon how strongly you feel about
Semantically, calling it until makes me think that if the needle
isn't found, it should return the entire haystack. Your example
implementation would return an empty string in that case. Also, to
keep consistency with other string methods like substr, shouldn't we
allow the developer to decide the
Isn’t that usually better handled via a regular expression?
One of the use cases for quasis [1][2] is to make it easy to insert literal
text into a regular expression. That seems pertinent here. Example:
re`\d+(${localeSpecificDecimalPoint}\d+)?`
The text in the variable
Yes, I see the use for returning the entire string if the needle isn't
found. I was also thinking about a dynamic start position, which is
why I'd favor something like this.
String.prototype.until = function (needle, start) {
start ?? 0;
return this.substr(start, this.indexOf(needle)) ||
Alex, I'm confused as to what regular expressions would help with in
this case. (Over .indexOf) The idea of .util() would be to return a
new string which is just a substring, but provided as an ease of use
to the developer.
The case where I wrote .util() was in parsing out two comma separated
/^(.*?)needle.*$/.exec(foobar_needle)[1]
'foobar_'
On Jan 2, 2012, at 19:04 , Adam Shannon wrote:
Alex, I'm confused as to what regular expressions would help with in
this case. (Over .indexOf) The idea of .util() would be to return a
new string which is just a substring, but provided as an
Array.prototype.repeat seems like a logical dual to String.prototype.repeat:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:string.prototype.repeat
Implementation:
Array.prototype.repeat = function (times) {
var result = [];
var len = this.length;
var resultLen =
I like it, it indeed looks very logical, however it's a bit controversial
that we need to create temporary array object to get one that we want.
Function (not method) that returns generated array may make more sense,
currently I'm using something like that:
var slice = Array.prototype.slice;
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
I like it, it indeed looks very logical, however it's a bit controversial
that we need to create temporary array object to get one that we want.
Function (not method) that returns generated array may make more
Another thing to think about is that .repeat (both on String and
Array) will be used a lot in production. So it would make sense for
each solution to be optimized for their specific case. It doesn't make
sense to slow down something as trivial as .repeat()
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 16:51, Michael A.
Hey Dave,
I'm definitely in favour of removing the opt-in (or at least commonly removing
the need to opt-in), and support the goal of one JS. Since most of the new
syntax only relies on reserved words and, as Brendon stated, yield is only
valid in function* constructs, the only problem so
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
I like it, it indeed looks very logical, however it's a bit controversial
that we need to create temporary array object to get one that we want.
Is the controversy editorial or fact, because the following
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Adam Shannon a...@ashannon.us wrote:
Another thing to think about is that .repeat (both on String and
Array) will be used a lot in production. So it would make sense for
each solution to be optimized for their specific case. It doesn't make
sense to slow down
({ define: typeof define === function
? define // browser
: function(F) { F(require,exports,module) } }). // Node.js
define(function (require, exports, module) {
// Node.js module code goes here
});
Sure, but in that case the test
typeof define ===
[Dave has been traveling, hope it's ok for me to jump in. /be]
On Jan 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
In other words, I think the main points of your proposal can
essentially be rephrased to:
1) Rename use version 6 to use module.
2) Allow module declarations in classic mode.
On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:12 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Moreover, the concept of static scoping and just look at the code to see if
a variable is declared is not that obvious for newcomers to the language or
newcomers to programming.
It's not obvious if the static scope is built up from sript
Right. Maybe the operator should have a different name. isDefined? has a
value expressed as an operator name?
isDefined x
would be syntactic sugar for
typeof x !== undefined x !== null
The expression would not throw an exception if x hasn’t been declared.
What about
24 matches
Mail list logo
