Hi Allen,
On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 11:08 -0800, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
We're putting a lot of energy into trying to figure out how to fix
for(let;;) when it probably shouldn't even be the preferred form of
numeric looping going forward. If we can make for-in/for-of attractive
enough then it is
Brendan Eich wrote:
Grant Husbands wrote:
* Both of them make closures in the init and in the rest see a
consistent world, for as long as is possible, while still giving body
closures unique copies per iteration.
Is there any inconsistency observable after as long as possible? I
can't find
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
With body-swap it concerns me a bit that is an arbitrary and
variable number of closures may need to be updated each iteration
(consider a body containing a while loop that spits out closures that
capture init bindings.)
I think there are some lazy possibilities for
On 6 February 2012 21:03, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Well, in fact what I proposed was not changing the behaviour of
head-closures, but body-closures. Basically, the idea was: let the loop run
in legacy semantics (only one block for the whole for-loop). All closures
(head ones and
This seems like a highly compelling argument. I hope I'm not the only one who
thinks the existing behavior of `for(;;)` makes sense. Granted, that comes from
understanding the detail that closures close over variables and not values,
which most users will not. But in general, `for(;;)` makes it
On 7 February 2012 13:32, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
What are the closures that were created,
They are the closures that lie lexically within the loop's code,
outside of the init, (or, put differently, those that have the loop's
environment record in scope) and that were
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 18:49, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
QuasiHole ::
Identifier
{ Spacing* (BalancedCurlySequence Spacing*)* }
If you replace that with:
QuasiHole ::
Identifier
{ Spacing* Expression Spacing* }
You can now support nested
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 18:49, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
QuasiChar ::
SourceCharacter but not one of $ or `
$ $
$ `
$ \ EscapeSequence
This part was never in the Quasi proposal. `abc$$def` is the same as
`abc\${def}` according to the current
On 7 February 2012 15:40, Grant Husbands esdisc...@grant.x43.net wrote:
On 7 February 2012 13:32, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
What should the following do?
let a = [], b = [], c = [], d = []
for (int i = 0, f = function(){ return function() { ++i } }; i 10;
d[i] = function()
The current specification of the ECMAScript Globalization API requires the
prototype objects for the LocaleList, Collator, NumberFormat, and
DateTimeFormat constructors to be objects constructed by these constructors
themselves. This is following a pattern established in the ECMAScript Language
On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
The current specification of the ECMAScript Globalization API requires the
prototype objects for the LocaleList, Collator, NumberFormat, and
DateTimeFormat constructors to be objects constructed by these constructors
themselves.
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
let a = [], b = [], c = [], d = []
for (int i = 0, f = function(){ return function() { ++i } }; i 10;
d[i] = function() { return i }, ++i) {
a[i] = f;
b[i] = f();
c[i] = function(){ return i }
}
But note that the environment in b's closures is not the for-loop
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
let a = [], b = [], c = [], d = []
for (int i = 0, f = function(){ return function() { ++i } }; i 10;
d[i] = function() { return i }, ++i) {
a[i] = f;
b[i] = f();
c[i] = function(){ return i }
}
But note that the environment in b's closures is not the for-loop
On 02/06/2012 06:49 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com
mailto:walde...@google.com wrote:
On 02/03/2012 08:07 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com
Correction...
This part was never in the Quasi proposal. `abc$$def` is the same as
`abc\${def}` according to the current proposal.
`abc\$${def}`
The point is that only $ident and ${...} are special. In all other
contexts, $ is a normal character.
--
erik
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 18:49, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
QuasiHole ::
Identifier
{ Spacing* (BalancedCurlySequence Spacing*)* }
If you replace that with:
QuasiHole ::
To reiterate, my posts here are expository, to explain how I approached
these same matters in E, to see if that helps resolve any remaining
controversy. Regarding what we're actually proposing, I'll let Mike speak
for that.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Erik Arvidsson
On 02/07/2012 02:51 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com
mailto:walde...@google.com wrote:
[...]
That's going back to the previous approach of treating the whole quasi as a
single token. This doesn't work because it's not possible
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com wrote:
[...]
To illustrate the problem, consider a simpler lexer rule:
TokenSequence ::
Token*
This will lex ainb as many things, including for example a in b.
I now understand your objection. Rather than trying to
I like Erik's way, but it makes a strange loop from lexical to syntactic
grammar. It all works, I believe.
The loop is here:
QuasiHole ::
Identifier
{ Spacing* Expression Spacing* }
Expression is a syntactic grammar non-terminal, yet here we are in a
lexical production.
20 matches
Mail list logo
