The grammar you think might make more sense is clearly broken, it does
not produce
++a[i]
or
x.y.z--
Why are you trying to change the grammar?
/be
Joseph Spencer wrote:
It's an honor to get replies from you guys!
I feel more educated now about the grammar, and the negative lookahead
Do we have an active champion for such a module or global object?
There is a strawman[1] that is pretty sketchy. There is also a proposal [2]
for a @std modules that alias most of the built-ins with global names.
Neither of them describe any new functionality that is only available through
My apologies on that one. I meant to type the following:
PostfixExpression:
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] ++
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] --
PrefixExpression:
++ [no LineTerminator here] LeftHandSideExpression
-- [no LineTerminator here]
On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Joseph Spencer wrote:
My apologies on that one. I meant to type the following:
PostfixExpression:
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] ++
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] --
PrefixExpression:
++ [no LineTerminator
Chrome appears to follow the spec a little closer. Observe the following:
var someVar = 5;
//valid syntax, throws ReferenceError
function passPlease(){
alert(someVar);
}
//invalid syntax, throws SyntaxError
function failPlease(){
alert(someVar);
}
-Joe
Allen Wirfs-Brock
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Joseph Spencer wrote:
My apologies on that one. I meant to type the following:
PostfixExpression:
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] ++
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] --
PrefixExpression:
++
Joseph Spencer wrote:
My apologies on that one. I meant to type the following:
PostfixExpression:
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] ++
LeftHandSideExpression [no LineTerminator here] --
PrefixExpression:
++ [no LineTerminator here] LeftHandSideExpression
-- [no
On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
According to the specification, those all should produce runtime
ReferenceError exceptions. However, at least Firefox, reports them as early
syntax errors. Technically, that is out of conformance with the
Wow, thanks for the reference to clause 16 (c16). I'm having a blast
getting further into the spec and it really helps to have these
conversations about it!
I believe its safe to say then that operating on c16 alone, FF handles
the spec appropriately and Chrome probably gave too much heed to
9 matches
Mail list logo