Doh... I really slipped on this one...
On Feb 6, 2015 3:21 AM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
The current spec being worked on to resolve this problem is at
http://whatwg.github.io/loader. It's still under construction, but it's
being written with browser and Node interop in mind.
Ignore that email... :(
On Feb 6, 2015 3:21 AM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
The current spec being worked on to resolve this problem is at
http://whatwg.github.io/loader. It's still under construction, but it's
being written with browser and Node interop in mind.
The current spec being worked on to resolve this problem is at
http://whatwg.github.io/loader. It's still under construction, but it's
being written with browser and Node interop in mind.
From: John Barton johnjbar...@google.com
To: Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com
Cc: monolithed
On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:04 AM, Ben Newman wrote:
The specific line in rev32 of the spec that prevents [[Call]]ing
classConstructor functions is 9.2.2.2:
2. If F’s [[FunctionKind]] internal slot is classConstructor, throw a
TypeError exception.
From my reading of the spec, I think the
On Feb 6, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 6 févr. 2015 à 18:04, Ben Newman benja...@cs.stanford.edu
mailto:benja...@cs.stanford.edu a écrit :
The specific line in rev32 of the spec that prevents [[Call]]ing
classConstructor functions is 9.2.2.2
Some tasteful inconsistency (the hobgoblin of big minds) is required
here. We want the well known symbols' names as static properties of
Symbol to be same-named.
/be
Mark Volkmann wrote:
Agreed, like at the constants on the Math object.
---
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
On Feb 6,
I'm using traits without any sort of problems in es-class [1] and the key
is to have an initialize method.
It's actually IMO bad expectation to explicitly initialize a known
constructor via a mixin, it makes it non portable and non reusable, correct?
What Kevin suggested is indeed the way I've
Ah, good catch :-) it's late. With strict mode on, it definitely fails, and
since the property descriptor is nonconfigurable and nonwritable, this is a
non-issue.
Don't mind me, I'll just go sit in the corner.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
I've
On 6 February 2015 at 10:19, Jordan Harband ljh...@gmail.com wrote:
Should a JS engine retain a reference to the original value of well-known
symbols (like Symbol.iterator), or should steps that use
well-known-Symbol-valued properties (like for..of iteration) always do a
dynamic lookup on
I've looked at your fiddle. The following assignment in line 5:
Symbol.iterator = Symbol('Symbol.iterator')
should fail (silently if you are not in strict mode), because the iterator
property of the Symbol object is not writable.
Therefore, in the rest of the fiddle, `Symbol.iterator`
Agreed, like at the constants on the Math object.
---
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
On Feb 6, 2015, at 12:39 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I know that this is a small nit and that it’s probably too late, but:
Shouldn’t public symbols (`Symbol.iterator` etc.) have
Should a JS engine retain a reference to the original value of well-known
symbols (like Symbol.iterator), or should steps that use
well-known-Symbol-valued properties (like for..of iteration) always do a
dynamic lookup on that value?
http://jsfiddle.net/hzzo10dm/2/ is a proof of concept that
Le 6 févr. 2015 à 05:47, Luke Scott l...@cywh.com a écrit :
I know traits are not something that will make it into ES6. This was the
suggested alternative on the mailing list:
class Thing extends mixin(Base, Trait1, Trait2) {...}
Unfortuantly since rev32 this is now seems impossible,
1. I made a mistake sending the email initially.
2. I was referencing the spec for the future module loader.
3. I think you meant to hit Reply All.
On Feb 6, 2015 10:27 AM, John Barton johnjbar...@google.com wrote:
?
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Probably too late, since ther is already implementations starting implementing them, what's more, I think constant are not necessarily uppercase - we should not apply convention of C on ECMAScript. To me it is reasonable to use lowercase.
___
es-discuss
Le 6 févr. 2015 à 18:04, Ben Newman benja...@cs.stanford.edu a écrit :
The specific line in rev32 of the spec that prevents [[Call]]ing
classConstructor functions is 9.2.2.2
16 matches
Mail list logo
