It should be ensured that the default implementation of
`Array.prototype.toLocaleString` will always produce consistent localisations
for both the list separator (by default `,`) and the array elements. For
instance, the array `[1.2, 3]` might be transformed, under `.toLocaleString`,
into
On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
All ECMAScript objects have a toLocaleString method, originally defined in
Object.prototype and overridden in Array, Number, and Date. The parameter
list of this method has changed over time:
- In ES3 and ES5, the methods don't take
I think we should at least consider for a moment reserving `await` within
the body of arrow functions. Consider the following event handling
scenario, where lexical `this` is an important feature:
this.button.on(click, $= {
this.getDataAsync().then(data = {
On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
On 12/10/13 5:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The code point sequence 0022, DEAD, 0022 is indeed, and intentionally,
a a valid JSON text according ECMA-404. JSON parsers do not exclusively
operate upon
Thanks for brining this up -- it's a good point. Unlike ES5 strict and
'yield', the cat is not yet out of the bag. We need to commit, though.
/be
Kevin Smith mailto:zenpars...@gmail.com
December 11, 2013 1:00 PM
I think we should at least consider for a moment reserving `await`
within the
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Thanks for brining this up -- it's a good point. Unlike ES5 strict and
'yield', the cat is not yet out of the bag. We need to commit, though.
I suspect there are a few keywords to reserve within new syntactic forms,
ie.
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up -- it's a good point. Unlike ES5
strict and 'yield', the cat is not yet out of the bag. We need to
commit, though.
I suspect there
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.commailto:
bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up -- it's a good point. Unlike ES5
strict and 'yield', the cat
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
On 12/11/13 1:54 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
So, 4627bis can specify that application/json documents an only contain
Unicode scalar value code points.
Well, it says: JSON text SHALL be encoded in UTF-8,
On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
...
If things had gone according to plan, it seems likely that Ecma would
have requested the IANA registration for application/json jointly lists
the IETF and Ecma International has holding Change Control over it, and
it seems unlikely
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Yes. I think the reasons for wanting the *, whether you agree with them or
not, all apply equally to ! (or whatever the syntax is).
And if there is a syntactic flag like that, I don't see that we need to worry
about preserving anything
But to recap the TC39 meeting discussion, we do not believe we can add
=* or =! -- the latter is arrow with a unary logical negation
expression as the body. Other places to put the * and ! are problematic
due to ASI. So what exactly are we gonna do for async arrows, if
anything? We said
12 matches
Mail list logo
