Le 8 oct. 2013 à 07:21, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com a écrit :
On Oct 7, 2013, at 8:05 PM, Nathan Wall wrote:
Set foo to bar.[[Baz]]
Does `foo` ever result in a non-undefined value if `bar` doesn't have an own
`[[Baz]]` property but inherits from an object that has an
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Nathan Wall wrote:
Set foo to bar.[[Baz]]
Does `foo` ever result in a non-undefined value if `bar` doesn't have
an own `[[Baz]]` property but inherits from an object that has an
internal `[[Baz]]` property?
I couldn't say, as this notation is never used
On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Nathan Wall wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Nathan Wall wrote:
Set foo to bar.[[Baz]]
Does `foo` ever result in a non-undefined value if `bar` doesn't have
an own `[[Baz]]` property but inherits from an object that has an
internal `[[Baz]]` property?
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Internal implies this is not an property.;
Allen
Ok, thanks for clearing that up!
Nathan
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Claude Pache wrote:
It may be useful to recall that there are different concepts in the spec
that have a name enclosed in double square brackets. I have found these
three:
* attributes of object properties (Section 6.1.7.1) [1];
Note
I could go with internal slot. Is data necessary?
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I could go with internal slot. Is data necessary?
or perhaps just slot.
One concern with inventing terminology at this time is that we really don't
know how we will want to talk about language level private object state
assuming when it gets
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404: THE JSON
Data Interchange Formal
See http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm
I'm glad the alphabet is now defined (and
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404: THE JSON
Data Interchange Formal
See http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm
I'm glad the alphabet is now defined (and
On 8 Oct 2013, at 19:59, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404: THE JSON
Data Interchange Formal
See http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm
As for Unicode, it explicitly refers to Unicode
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 8 Oct 2013, at 19:59, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404: THE
JSON Data Interchange Formal
See
On 08/10/2013, at 19:59, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404: THE JSON
Data Interchange Formal
See http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm
It provides the normative specification of the syntax of JSON Text
On 8 Oct 2013, at 22:19, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
As for Unicode, it explicitly refers to Unicode 6.2.0, even though version
6.3.0 was released last week.
The document was written in July, which was
Quite often Date values are used in data exchanges in form of JS
literals or JSON.
It would be beneficial if JS (and JSON as derivative) will have an
ability to represent dates literally . For example:
{
eventType: meeting,
eventStarts: 2014-11-05T13:15:30Z,
eventDurationHours: 4
}
2013/10/8 Andrew Fedoniouk n...@terrainformatica.com:
Quite often Date values are used in data exchanges in form of JS
literals or JSON.
It would be beneficial if JS (and JSON as derivative) will have an
ability to represent dates literally . For example:
JSON can't change since it's not
On 8 Oct 2013, at 23:39, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
JSON must not change. If it refers to the latest Unicode, whatever that is,
then it is potentially subject to disruption by (admittedly unlikely) future
changes to Unicode.
By that logic, it should have referred to either
16 matches
Mail list logo
