Hi all,
As I totally agree that a promise can only be resolved or rejected once ...
so I think his behavior is perhaps too black or white.
As IRL, when we receive a promise, we expect that the author makes every
effort to resolve it, by any way.
Progammatically, we can wish the same.
By
Throughout my history with JS (and pretty much every programming language
I've used) I've always found one thing really awkward: reassigning a
variable to the result of its method.
Say you have code like this:
var foo = function (options) {
var string = something();
if (
I'm still experiencing the problem, having just, in the same operation, put
myself on the CC list and added a comment on some bug.
Therefore I've open a new bug for that issue, see Bug 2868:
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2868
(Naturally, the issue was observed again when created
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Michael Dyck jmd...@ibiblio.org wrote:
For the past couple of days, when I create or modify a bug on
bugs.ecmascript.org, my browser doesn't get a response. I know
the requests are being received, because when I check via another
tab, the creation or
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Michaël Rouges
michael.rou...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
As I totally agree that a promise can only be resolved or rejected once ...
so I think his behavior is perhaps too black or white.
As IRL, when we receive a promise, we expect that the author makes every
I don't pretend that impossible to do with current promises.
I'm just saying that we can get a complexity that could be easily avoided.
And a catch/then doesn't allow to return in the first promise onFulfilled,
without embedded promises.
I think a practical example might better illustrate the
```
var sources = [internal, external1, external2];
function doStuff (e) {
// likely check if it's the right kind of error;
var url = sources.shift();
if (typeof url === 'undefined) {
return Promise.reject(new Error('out of sources'));
}
return
Hi everyone!
It's interesting to me that many Math functions do not specify any bound on
precision, even though it's possible to have some bounds (like Java does) or to
even specify the algorithm since free ones exist (fdlibm being the one I'm
familiar with).
I am curious if this has been
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski
jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com wrote:
Throughout my history with JS (and pretty much every programming language
I've used) I've always found one thing really awkward: reassigning a
variable to the result of its method.
Say you have code like
and what about
obj []= 'propertyName'
as well?
--scott
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:27 PM, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.netwrote:
and what about
obj []= 'propertyName'
as well?
--scott
I imagined .= would do both, but I don't think my suggestion should be
taken seriously. In fact, your example illustrates a major flaw (that
exists in
I've have a serve respect pending with Mozilla IT. I'll see if I can nudge
them.
Allen
On May 15, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Michael Dyck jmd...@ibiblio.org wrote:
For the past couple of days, when I create or modify a bug on
It's my understanding that the vast majority of the CLR's dynamic
language support is at the runtime level, not the bytecode level. The
bytecode is strongly typed (with lots of instructions/mechanisms for
boxing, unboxing and type casts), and dynamic support is done through
something called the
maybe relevant to this topic:
https://www.webkit.org/blog/3362/introducing-the-webkit-ftl-jit/
WebKit chaps basically transform JS to LLVM compatible instructions
Too bad they are testing from 2007 libraries such Prototype and
inheritance.js :P
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:14 PM, K. Gadd
On May 15, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
maybe relevant to this topic:
https://www.webkit.org/blog/3362/introducing-the-webkit-ftl-jit/
WebKit chaps basically transform JS to LLVM compatible instructions
Thanks for the shout-out!
But I don't
but you mentioned very old one I think nobody cares much anymore ;-)
still very interesting how you reach that LLVM IR !
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On May 15, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
maybe relevant
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
I imagined .= would do both, but I don't think my suggestion should be taken
seriously. In fact, your example illustrates a major flaw (that exists in
either proposal/suggestion), that I don't immediately know how I
17 matches
Mail list logo
