2013/1/3 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
On Jan 3, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
I think it's perfectly obvious what it means for an exotic property to be
complete: that it is at least a complete data or accessor property (i.e. it
either has
Thank you guys, I somehow missed that vital piece of information...
Right after I sent the proposal I read Brendans blog post from October and
found the info regarding returning arrays. Sorry for the noise. :)
I'll read the specs more thoroughly and get back if I have any more concerns.
Anyhow
I wonder: in what way does this design effectively decide the design for
an existential member operator (?.)?
If it does decide the matter, then it seems like it might as well go into
ES6.
{ Kevin }
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Jan 4, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
From your point of view, it's only natural that proxies would be an ES6
programmer's tool to define and experiment with entirely new types of
properties.
From my point of view, it's problematic (as in: not backwards-compatible)
that
Kevin Smith wrote:
I wonder: in what way does this design effectively decide the design
for an existential member operator (?.)?
Adding suffix-? to the pattern language still leaves open some design
decisions:
A. Whether to support suffix-? in expressions.
B. If not, whether to support ?. as
Brendan Eich wrote:
Ease of teaching != successfully imparted knowledge at scale. Sorry, but
it's true. People don't use use strict; at top level enough, and
teaching them all will take time. Even then, because of the Law of Least
Effort, it'll be left out.
This is the major objection some
6 matches
Mail list logo
