Python, Coffeescript and VB use the is operator for object identity, not
for instanceof like functionality. Dart uses the is operator analogous to
instanceof. It would seem to me it'd be beneficial to pick a different
operator name, in order to avoid the fuddled meaning this operator has
taken to
Norbert’s original proposal for the `u` flag
(http://norbertlindenberg.com/2012/05/ecmascript-supplementary-characters/#RegExp)
mentioned the following:
Possibly the definition of the character classes `\d\D\w\W\b\B` is extended
to their Unicode extensions, such as all characters in the
I know it's just a sketch but that `Object.prototype.is` does not play well
with `Object.create` where no constructor is necessary to create `is`
relations.
Regards
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:15 PM, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Isiah Meadows
Sorry, I sent this only to Tab.
On 20 Aug 2014 17:39, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Salvador de la Puente González
sa...@unoyunodiez.com wrote:
Hello.
Just a little presentation before the proposal. I'm Salvador de la
Puente
González (you
Hello, recently I read about `let` inside for loops. According to
https://leanpub.com/understandinges6/read#leanpub-auto-block-bindings
`let` allows the developer to make:
```js
function test() {
for (let i=0; i10; i++) {
setTimeout(() = console.log(i));
}
}
```
And this will print 0,
(Forwarding to Norbert as I don't know how closely he follows es-discuss.)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be
Date: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Questions regarding ES6 Unicode regular expressions
To: es-discuss es-discuss@mozilla.org
That is an intended behavior, you can see that `let` loop in this way,
metaphorically speaking:
```js
function test() {
for (var i=0; i10; i++) {
(function(i){
setTimeout(() = console.log(i));
}.call(this, i));
}
}
```
except after the loop no variable `i` with last loop value
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Till Schneidereit
t...@tillschneidereit.net wrote:
(Forwarding to Norbert as I don't know how closely he follows es-discuss.)
I think last year somewhere regular expression extensions were
postponed because nobody was interested in working out detailed
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 8/24/14, 10:26 PM, Mark Everitt wrote:
The problem remains that arrow functions make
bind etc. unpredictable.
I think part of Domenic's point is that return values of bind() also make
bind (and call/apply for that
Does it only work for `for` loops, or it is the same for any block?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
That is an intended behavior, you can see that `let` loop in this way,
metaphorically speaking:
```js
function test() {
for (var
I got my lack-of-sleep addled head around this by realising that an arrow
function performs like an immediately bound function expression:
```js
var test = (function (){
// Do stuff with this...
}).bind(this);
```
i.e. Domenic's second example function. Then it was obvious that arrow
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Charles Pick char...@codemix.com wrote:
Hello, forgive me if this has come up before, I couldn't find any
discussions via Google.
One regular, annoying mistake I see people making is combining the `!`
operator with `instanceof`:
if (!foo instanceof
I agree that this could cause some problems, however, that code has never
been correct in the first place. It's the equivalent of writing `if (false)
{...}`. Seems like it's reasonable to fix something if it only has an
impact on code which is already broken.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:56 AM,
Before doing that, I would propose to introduce `not`, `and` and `or` with
fixed associativity or even a `notinstanceof` for that case before changing
the semantics of ! operator. Indeed I think `!object instance of class` is
less readable than !(object instanceof class).
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Charles Pick char...@codemix.com wrote:
I agree that this could cause some problems, however, that code has never
been correct in the first place. It's the equivalent of writing `if (false)
{...}`. Seems like it's reasonable to fix something if it only has an
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Salvador de la Puente González
sa...@unoyunodiez.com wrote:
Sorry, I sent this only to Tab.
On 20 Aug 2014 17:39, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Salvador de la Puente González
sa...@unoyunodiez.com wrote:
At:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts#august_24_2014_draft_rev_27
Fixed scoping bug in for-of, catch clause, comprehensions WRT TDZ for iteration
bindings. see bug: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3011
For-in/for-of loop bodies can’t contain tail
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Salvador de la Puente González
sa...@unoyunodiez.com wrote:
Does it only work for `for` loops,
No
or it is the same for any block?
Yes, let and const are block-scoped.
Rick
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Marius Gundersen wrote:
One way to do this would be to predeclare the modules, as in:
script type=module src=a.js id=a needs=c load-policy=when-needed
/script
script type=module src=b.js id=b needs=c load-policy=when-needed
/script
script
Cc the list...
On Aug 25, 2014 6:06 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
There really shouldn't be any sort of object construction needed to check
types like this. `isa` may be better, anyways, but I still find that
requirement to build and destroy an object to check somewhat
On Aug 25, 2014, at 1:59 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
Norbert’s original proposal for the `u` flag
(http://norbertlindenberg.com/2012/05/ecmascript-supplementary-characters/#RegExp)
mentioned the following:
Possibly the definition of the character classes `\d\D\w\W\b\B` is
Isiah Meadows wrote:
Cc the list...
On Aug 25, 2014 6:06 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com
mailto:impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
There really shouldn't be any sort of object construction needed
to check types like this. `isa` may be better, anyways, but I
still find that
22 matches
Mail list logo
