2012/6/14 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
...
Thanks. Any reason this wasn't included in ES5 that you recall?
Minimalism. Object.* wasn't intended to be a comprehensive reflection
library, just a set of essential primitives that
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This proposal augments the default operator
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator by
adding syntax to avoid accessing a missing property, specifically |?.|
for getting and setting a property from a reference base that might be
|undefined| or
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently absorb
any error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would become:
let greedy = silent obj.hints.greedy;
The semantic would be exactly the same.
The syntax is up to debate. Specifically, it would be nice to be able to
As there is no keyword as 'or' so far, does something like *x = x.value or
5 *sound better?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently absorb
any error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would
Le 19/06/2012 11:40, Hemanth H.M a écrit :
As there is no keyword as 'or' so far, does something like *x =
x.value or 5 *sound better?
I realize I gave examples with default values in case of error, but it
doesn't have to be the case. Specifically in
let greedy = try obj.hints.greedy
an
On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:46 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
Le 11/06/2012 12:30, Hemanth H.M a écrit :
[].forEach.call(NodeList,function(elm) {}) why that? Why not treat it like
an [] ?
I've written a section on MDN specifically a while ago to answer that very
question:
Le 19/06/2012 14:11, Alex Russell a écrit :
On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:46 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
Le 11/06/2012 12:30, Hemanth H.M a écrit :
[].forEach.call(NodeList,function(elm) {}) why that? Why not treat it like an
[] ?
I've written a section on MDN specifically a while ago to answer
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 8:29 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 19/06/2012 14:11, Alex Russell a écrit :
On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:46 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
Le 11/06/2012 12:30, Hemanth H.M a écrit :
[].forEach.call(NodeList,function(elm) {}) why that? Why not treat it
I guess we can try to push Web IDL to do this.
2012/6/11 Hemanth H.M hemanth...@gmail.com:
[].forEach.call(NodeList,function(elm) {}) why that? Why not treat it like
an [] ?
--
'I am what I am because of who we all are'
h3manth.com
-- Hemanth HM
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@norbertlindenberg.com wrote:
The ECMAScript Internationalization API Specification currently has
normalization as an optional feature in collation. However, it requires
that the compare function return 0 when comparing Strings
The test is at
http://norbertlindenberg.com/ecmascript/ESTest.html (and .js).
The strings I used are:
[o\u0308, ö],
[ä\u0323, a\u0323\u0308], // requires reordering
[a\u0308\u0323, a\u0323\u0308], // requires reordering
[ạ\u0308, a\u0323\u0308],
[ä\u0306, a\u0308\u0306],
[ă\u0308, a\u0306\u0308],
On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:29 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 19/06/2012 14:11, Alex Russell a écrit :
...
is to give us a chance to fix this (among other) errors in DOM's design.
Yes, it's up to DOM to fix it, but we need ES to adopt things like Allen's
Object Model Reformation to help enable
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:42 AM, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess we can try to push Web IDL to do this.
WebIDL provides [ArrayClass] and DOM4 make NodeLists ArrayClass. This
means that NodeLists have Array.prototype on its prototype chain.
We tried to make this change in WebKit but it
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Actual API design is probably an orthogonal issue. What the Object Model
Reformation proposal (which is probably better understood by its subtitle
Decoupling [ ] and Property Access) does is permit the existing
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This proposal augments the default operator
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator by adding
syntax to avoid accessing a missing property, specifically |?.| for getting
and setting a
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This proposal augments the default
operatorhttp://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator by adding
syntax to avoid accessing a missing property, specifically |?.| for
Hoping to see that day soon! :)
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Actual API design is probably an orthogonal issue. What the Object
Model Reformation proposal
When I made that one : https://github.com/Ayms/node-dom it was supposed
to be a fast and minimal implementation of the DOM, so it works in
almost all real cases and do not crash in other situations.
The result is not bad but not as fast as expected neither minimal. Not
minimal because I had
On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:30 AM, David Bruant wrote:
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently absorb any
error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would become:
let greedy = silent obj.hints.greedy;
A hazard with this approach is that it could silence a
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
document.forms[0].bar instead of document.forms[0]['bar']
frames.foo instead of frames['foo']
How does Allen's strawman preclude these? You can have .foo and .bar by
the usual means, as properties (lazy if proxied). You can alias indexes
to them using @elementGet and
David Bruant wrote:
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently
absorb any error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would become:
let greedy = silent obj.hints.greedy;
Ignoring exact syntax, I don't think we want more general throwing
suppression. The goal with
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I still stand by my alternative semantics as being a way to address the more
important use case without have ?()
No, the basis cases differ and that is a bug in your alternative.
foo?.bar means take bar from foo or undefined if foo == null.
foo?.bar() means take bar
Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I still stand by my alternative semantics as being a way to address
the more important use case without have ?()
No, the basis cases differ and that is a bug in your alternative.
foo?.bar means take bar from foo or undefined if foo == null.
Sorry -- an old inbox filter caused me to miss this...
There were a couple of questions asked in the thread, but I think it might
be helpful to summarize the overall rationale first.
The existential operator in CoffeeScript (?) is intended to make it easier
to ask questions about whether values
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
How does Allen's strawman preclude these? You can have .foo and .bar by the
usual means, as properties (lazy if proxied). You can alias indexes to them
using @elementGet and @elementSet if those hooks are invoked for any
Norbert--
The ECMAScript Internationalization API Specification currently has
normalization as an optional feature in collation. However, it requires that
the compare function return 0 when comparing Strings that are considered
canonically equivalent by the Unicode standard. Canonical
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
How does Allen's strawman preclude these? You can have .foo and .bar by the
usual means, as properties (lazy if proxied). You can alias indexes to them
using
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
Let == be equivalence for a program fragment, and != be
inequivalence. Then we have in JS today extended with do expressions
(and gensym via $tmp):
foo.bar() == do {let $tmp = foo.bar; $tmp.call(foo)}
Now
Brendan Eich wrote:
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
... or it leaks maybe-Reference type values into the language.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
There are various differences between @elementGet and @elementSet and proxy
get/set handlers. One is that the index value isn't coerced to a string
before being passed to @elementGet/@elementSet
That's a good
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
There are various differences between @elementGet and @elementSet and proxy
get/set handlers. One is that the index value isn't coerced to a string before
being passed to
Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
Everywhere else in the language, `?` means existence (not null or
undefined) -- but when used to call a function, the check ensures that
the value is callable as well. In a DWIM sense, this makes sense,
because the only things you'd ever want to try to call in
What struck me from Jeremy's explanation was the uniformity of CoffeeScript's ?
operator (modulo the small issue he mentioned for function calls). It seems to
combine the currently-strawman'ed ??/??= and ?. into one very simple semantic.
What about adopting ?? as CoffeeScript's ? operator?
Brendan Eich wrote:
Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
Everywhere else in the language, `?` means existence (not null or
undefined) -- but when used to call a function, the check ensures that
the value is callable as well. In a DWIM sense, this makes sense,
because the only things you'd ever want to try
That's possible but it is a bit ugly, isn't it?
Also, as dherman observed, ?. and variations are different from
defaulting, in one point of view. That is, avoiding dereferencing a
value that does not coerce to object is the purpose of ?. but not
necessarily of ??= (or || as used for
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Will you include options.success?.[index] then, too?
I wasn't planning on it. CoffeeScript does not have any such thing
(spelling it ?[ would be hard in CS too, due to array literals). Could
add it in the future, trying not to overdo the strawman at this point.
YAGNI and
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Will you include options.success?.[index] then, too?
I wasn't planning on it. CoffeeScript does not have any such thing
(spelling it ?[ would be hard in CS too, due to array literals). Could add
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I still stand by my alternative semantics as being a way to address the
more important use case without have ?()
No, the basis cases differ and that is a bug in your alternative.
foo?.bar
Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Will you include options.success?.[index] then, too?
I wasn't planning on it. CoffeeScript does not have any such thing
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I don't agree, probably because I'm look at ?. as an operator that evaluates to
a special kind of Reference.
That your alternative off-by-one in its basis case is bad enough -- it
creates two error suppression points from one syntactic extension-point,
it will hide
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
Let == be equivalence for a program fragment, and != be inequivalence.
Then we have in JS today extended with do expressions (and gensym via $tmp):
Brendan Eich wrote:
Worse, instead of leaking an observable ConditionalReference (whew!),
you've opted to break the equivalence between foo.bar() and %tmp =
foo.bar; %tmp.call(foo) for the case where . is replaced by ?. -- in
this case your proposal does not throw while the expansion does.
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Worse, instead of leaking an observable ConditionalReference (whew!), you've
opted to break the equivalence between foo.bar() and %tmp = foo.bar;
%tmp.call(foo) for the case where . is replaced by ?. -- in this case your
Is it possible to do something like
foo.bar?:(foo, args)
Basically a ternary that allows an empty component, and can tell the future
(whether the other result is callable)
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
foo.bar?(args) == foo.bar?.call(foo, args)
fun?(args) == fun?.call(undefined, args)
How are these equivalent? Won't fun?.call evaluate to undefined if fun is
undefined and undefined(undefined,args) will
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
foo.bar?(args) == foo.bar?.call(foo, args)
fun?(args) == fun?.call(undefined, args)
How are these equivalent? Won't fun?.call evaluate to
Le 19/06/2012 18:21, Erik Arvidsson a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:42 AM, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess we can try to push Web IDL to do this.
WebIDL provides [ArrayClass] and DOM4 make NodeLists ArrayClass. This
means that NodeLists have Array.prototype on its prototype chain.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
Ah, interesting...so this is actually close to what I was advocating for
this particular case. However, if I now understand correctly you are
saying that
fun?.call()
produces undefined if fun is
On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
...
Ha ha, loose equality strikes again! It's actually guarding for both null and
undefined. It's the only place that CoffeeScript purposefully uses the
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 19/06/2012 18:21, Erik Arvidsson a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:42 AM, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess we can try to push Web IDL to do this.
WebIDL provides [ArrayClass] and DOM4 make NodeLists ArrayClass.
On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 19/06/2012 18:21, Erik Arvidsson a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:42 AM, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess we can try to push Web IDL to do this.
WebIDL
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
Let== be equivalence for a program fragment, and!= be inequivalence. Then
we have in JS today extended with do expressions (and
Indeed I did not spec this in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:existential_operator#semantics
-- one step at a time. Also I'm not sure how the indefinite soak will
fly with others on TC39.
Allen, I agree if we do make a soak and don't spec it as CoffeeScript
realizes it (by
Complement for my last sentence : if you are using ?. it means that you
don't know if the thing does exist, then you are probably waiting for it
to exist (asynchronous environments for example), then once you get it,
it is very unlikely that you call it right away, I would like to see
some
54 matches
Mail list logo
