On 15 December 2012 22:52, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
So, to me, it sounds like that to continue down this path we should really
add new non-reflected properties attributes that are the real control points
for the ES semantics. Eg, we may need [[RealReadOnly]],
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 15 December 2012 22:52, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
So, to me, it sounds like that to continue down this path we should really
add new non-reflected properties attributes that are the real
On 17 December 2012 13:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I see the following preferable solutions to deal with DOM features violating
ES:
1. Lobby to fix the DOM and make it conform to ES instead of the
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 17 December 2012 13:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
I see the following preferable solutions to deal with DOM features
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.comwrote:
Now I'm really scared. Please let's not go there.
I see the following preferable solutions to deal with DOM features
violating ES:
1. Lobby to fix the DOM and make it conform to ES instead of the other
way round.
Le 17/12/2012 13:51, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 17 December 2012 13:01, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I see the following
If down the road we want to allow for the theoretical possibility of
having all platform APIs implemented in JavaScript, we might want a
sync Object.observe. If we have types down the road as well (this
might be a bit presumptuous), URLQuery could just be a MultiMap and
whenever the MultiMap was
Le 17/12/2012 15:19, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
If down the road we want to allow for the theoretical possibility of
having all platform APIs implemented in JavaScript, we might want a
sync Object.observe.
Which part of the platform needs a sync Object.observe?
I feel all platform APIs can be
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:39 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Which part of the platform needs a sync Object.observe?
(Thanks for the reply.) I think nothing does per se, but it might make
manner more convenient.
I don't understand what you mean by types. And I also don't understand
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf
of Anne van Kesteren [ann...@annevk.nl]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 09:56
By types I mean e.g. constraining set() to just accept strings.
I think the JavaScript-y way of doing this, as exemplified in the ES5
Le 17/12/2012 15:56, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:39 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Which part of the platform needs a sync Object.observe?
(Thanks for the reply.)
Thanks for your post.
I think nothing does per se, but it might make
manner more
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
If down the road we want to allow for the theoretical possibility of
having all platform APIs implemented in JavaScript, we might want a
sync Object.observe. If we have types down the road as well (this
might be a bit
On 12/17/12 4:51 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Independent of these specific issues, I think that the whole Window vs
WindowProxy hack is terrible. If anyone thinks there is any hope of
getting rid of this hack, I encourage you to try.
For what it's worth, it's specified that way not least because
*12/14/2012 at Google Inc
Meeting of Internationalization ad-hoc group
Attendees: Norbert (Mozilla), Mark Davis (Google, Unicode), Richard
(Amazon), Suresh (Microsoft), Eric (Microsoft), Nebojsa (Google)
Agenda:
Go through http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=globalization:meetings,
14 matches
Mail list logo
