On 4 February 2013 23:44, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
What's confusing?
The fact that you can have an object property without a colon and a
function without a function keyword. Then a property descriptor uses a
completely new syntax to define the same thing. Why?
2013/2/4 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
Le 04/02/2013 22:41, David Bruant a écrit :
Le 04/02/2013 19:57, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
The post-trap could be cached and reused, but only if the
post-processing is independent of the specific arguments passed to the
intercepted operation.
Is
2013/2/4 François REMY francois.remy@outlook.com
I don't know if native objects have a mutable [[Prototype]] (by
assigning __proto__) but if they do, then one solution might be to have
your native objects inherit from a proxy. The proxy should then be able
to intercept all missing
Le 05/02/2013 12:20, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
2013/2/4 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com mailto:bruan...@gmail.com
Le 04/02/2013 22:41, David Bruant a écrit :
Le 04/02/2013 19:57, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
The post-trap could be cached and reused, but only if the
Le 04/02/2013 23:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Mark S. Miller wrote:
In any case, you may be right that this is a fatal flaw. You're
making a performance-based argument, and it is certainly premature
one way or the other to predict how these relative costs will balance
out. Let's wait till we
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the current API better because it allows for a cleaner pairing of pre
and post-traps, including the ability to share private intermediate state
through closure capture.
I have to admit, I'm a bit sad to loose
I am trying to understand what should happen if you do a nested
destructuring of undefined, where the pattern has a default value included.
Here is an example of my question:
var foo = { bar : { baz : true } };
function readFoo({ bar: { baz=DEFAULT BAZ} }){
console.log(baz);
}
readFoo(foo);
On 5 February 2013 14:32, Aaron Frost aaronfr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to understand what should happen if you do a nested
destructuring of undefined, where the pattern has a default value included.
Here is an example of my question:
var foo = { bar : { baz : true } };
function
Le 05/02/2013 13:52, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM, David Bruantbruan...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the current API better because it allows for a cleaner pairing of pre
and post-traps, including the ability to share private intermediate state
through closure
my apologies for not reading that ahead of time.
I just took the time to read it and must say that I really like this. The
syntax is easy to read and offers flexibility. Kudos to all who contrib'd
to this.
AF
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.comwrote:
On 5
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:19 AM, gaz Heyes gazhe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2013 23:44, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
What's confusing?
The fact that you can have an object property without a colon and a
function without a function keyword.
ES6 concise methods will make
Indeed, and given use of ES6, I expect things like this wouldn't be very
uncommon (I think is supposed to be Object.define right?):
Object.define(x, {
get a(){},
set a(v){},
get b(){},
c(){}
});
Instead of most current descriptor stuff (since enumerability and
configurability are rarely
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Brandon Benvie
bran...@brandonbenvie.comwrote:
Indeed, and given use of ES6, I expect things like this wouldn't be very
uncommon (I think is supposed to be Object.define right?):
Nothing there yet, though I suspect Object.mixin() will have more traction.
Right, I think mixin is winning over define as the name. Same semantics
in either case.
Allen
On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Brandon Benvie bran...@brandonbenvie.com
wrote:
Indeed, and given use of ES6, I expect things like this
David Bruant wrote:
About the performance argument, I think a performance argument can
only be made in comparison with what we have and not in absolute terms.
Agreed, and I wrote taking that into account.
What's at stake with notification proxies is getting rid of invariant
checks [1]. For
Sorry if I was a thread-killer, posting four times in a row.
On balance we have:
prefix-? pros:
* LR(1) grammar without ambiguity or lookahead restriction.
prefix-? cons:
* ASI hazard if ? starts an intended destructuring assignment expression.
suffix-? pros:
* Matches CoffeeScript
* Matches
Brendan Eich wrote:
Sorry if I was a thread-killer, posting four times in a row.
On balance we have:
prefix-? pros:
* LR(1) grammar without ambiguity or lookahead restriction.
Forgot to add the one Andreas cited:
* Easier to see prefix-? in front of long object or array pattern.
/be
17 matches
Mail list logo
