Kevin Smith wrote:
It does not even contain the word strict. IIRC (and I asked
about this at the last TC39 meeting and got verbal confirmation),
the idea of module {...} implying strict mode was latent, or
intended. I'm not sure about out of line modules.
At this point,
Le 27/12/2012 06:40, David Herman a écrit :
We've given up on the (non-existent) invariant that [[Prototype]] is
immutable. That doesn't mean we should set caution to the wind and
specify standard libraries that mutate [[Prototype]] links whenever it
happens to solve some problem.
As you'll
Le 27/12/2012 02:52, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
As an aside, ES itself can't self-host its own builtins in strict mode
because of the (two of the very few) semantic differences that exist
between strict mode and non-strict mode: non-strict thrower properties
(which I've come to consider an
On 27 December 2012 01:50, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2012, at 2:45 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
The question, then, boils down to what the observation should be: a
runtime error (aka temporal dead zone) or 'undefined'. Given that
choice, the
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
It does not even contain the word strict. IIRC (and I asked
about this at the last TC39 meeting and got verbal confirmation),
the idea of module {...} implying strict mode was latent, or
Good points. I rarely (if ever) miss more powerful collections. I do miss more
functionality along the lines of the standard libraries of functional
programming languages. And I sometimes miss working with arrays of objects (or
maps) like in relational calculus (or, possibly, LINQ). That last
Le 27/12/2012 06:32, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Mark S. Miller wrote:
Superstition aside, and once pre-ES5 browsers are not significant, the
only purpose of sloppy mode is for old code that must be kept running
without active maintenance.
That is a teleological statement -- you're talking about
On 27 December 2012 06:38, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 24, 2012, at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
It seems ES6 has __proto__ which also allows modifying [[Prototype]]
so presumably this is nothing particularly bad, although it is very
ugly :-(
It
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:38 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Thank for the heads up. I'll chat with bz to get more of the back story. This
is pretty effing awful. It may in fact be unavoidable but I'd like to make
sure I understand why people feel there's no alternative; otherwise
On 27 December 2012 05:53, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
I have a theory: hashes and lookup tables (arrays or vectors) have
displaced most other data structures because most of the time, for most
programs (horrible generalizations I know), you don't need ordered entries,
or other
Since any new code will likely be written as a module (even in the
near-term, transpiled back to ES5), this would be the ideal scenario.
Which this do you mean? modules (in or out of line) implying strict mode
can target ES5 strict, no problem.
This meaning all module code (in or
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 27 December 2012 05:53, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
I have a theory: hashes and lookup tables (arrays or vectors) have
displaced most other data structures because most of the time, for
most programs (horrible
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 27 December 2012 06:38, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
mailto:dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 24, 2012, at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
mailto:ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
It seems ES6 has __proto__ which also allows modifying [[Prototype]]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:03 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 26/12/2012 23:14, David Herman a écrit :
On Dec 24, 2012, at 2:34 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
I've reading the loader API [1] and I was wondering if it was possible to
dynamically change the global. I
Le 27/12/2012 20:04, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
This is a very good point. Is there any reason other than legacy
compat why WebIDL specifies inherited accessors rather than own
properties?
There is no legacy compat issue. Before WebIDL, the ECMAScript
representation of DOM objects was an absurd
It's definitely been my experience that accessors, as found in IE and
Firefox, are much more fidgety and error prone than own data properties, as
found in WebKit. The fact that it becomes possible to call them on invalid
targets and that it's no longer possible for a debugger to simply display
own
So does anyone know why? Own properties were the obvious choice, so
there must have been some reason to choose inherited accessors
instead.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brandon Benvie
bran...@brandonbenvie.com wrote:
It's definitely been my experience that accessors, as found in IE and
On Dec 27, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
Let's start with TDZ-RBA. This semantics is *totally untenable* because it
goes against existing practice. Today, you can create a variable that starts
out undefined and use that on purpose:
I think nobody ever
On Dec 27, 2012, at 1:51 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I think hoisting can mean different things, which kind of makes this debate a
bit confused.
Yep. Sometimes people mean the scope extends to a region before the syntactic
position where the declaration appears, sometimes
On 27 December 2012 21:08, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 27, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
var x;
if (...) { x = ... }
if (x === undefined) { ... }
If you want to use let instead, the === if-condition will throw. You
would
On 27 December 2012 21:23, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 27, 2012, at 1:51 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I think hoisting can mean different things, which kind of makes this
debate a bit confused.
Yep. Sometimes people mean the scope extends to a region
On 27 December 2012 23:38, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I don't feel qualified to talk for Scheme, but all Ocaml I've ever
seen (SML uses more verbose 'let' syntax anyway) formatted the above as
let sq = x * x in
print (sq: ^ toString sq ^ \n);
let y = sq / 2 in
On 27 December 2012 18:25, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
That is, if having it at all, I'd still think it much wiser to ban it to
some Appendix.
What earthly good would that do?
Marketing and psychology (as I said, being important). It would send a
clear message that it is just
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 27 December 2012 18:25, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
That is, if having it at all, I'd still think it much wiser to
ban it to some Appendix.
What earthly good would that do?
Marketing and psychology (as I
David Herman wrote:
ES1 in 1995
JS if you please! No ES till 1996 November at earliest, really till
June 1997.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Dec 27, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
It's true that with TDZ, there is a difference between the two forms above,
but that is irrelevant, because that difference can only be observed for
erroneous programs (i.e. where the first version throws, because 'x'
On Dec 27, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
Since any new code will likely be written as a module (even in the
near-term, transpiled back to ES5), this would be the ideal scenario.
Which this do you mean? modules (in or out of line) implying strict mode
can target
This thread needs a new subject to be a spin-off on the very important
topic of to TDZ or not to TDZ 'let'. IMHO you neatly list the risks below.
I had swallowed TDZ in the face of these risks. I'm still willing to do
so, for Harmony and for greater error catching in practice. I strongly
Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
IOW, I want more strict extensions too, but implicitly! Again, having to
write use strict; itself makes for more sloppy code over time, but new
syntax can be its own reward for the new semantics.
Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:26:48 +0100, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
Brian Terlson wrote:
20 sites, however, will likely be broken by this change in some way.
I am guessing this is the key point. But there is a scope error, and
this is undefined. It
30 matches
Mail list logo
