On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:04 PM, liorean lior...@gmail.com wrote:
Do we really need it?
Your «foo(1, ?, 2);» is equivalent to «a=foo(1,a,2)».
Your «foo(?, 1, ???);» is equivalent to «(a,...b)=foo(a,1,...b)».
Your «foo(1, ???, 2);» is equivalent to «(...a)=foo(...[1,...a,2])».
Not exactly.
On 2015-04-08 16:59, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com writes:
Well, they do for normal loop completions (according to the spec.) but not for
breaks. I this the latter is a bug. In particular, I think it is pretty
obvious that:
eval(“ {0; while (true) {1; break}; 2}”)
should
On Apr 9, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Alan Schmitt alan.schm...@polytechnique.org
wrote:
1. Let sl be the result of evaluating StatementList.
2. ReturnIfAbrupt(sl).
3. Let s be the result of evaluating StatementListItem.
4. If s.[[type]] is throw, return Completion(s).
5. If s.[[value]] is
( note: you can view this message as a gist @
https://gist.github.com/kosich/375da99403c76bc75bbd )
Currently we can imitate Arrays only with objects, where we would
refer to a value at some position via referring to objects property (
with integer index being converted to a string )
```js
var
Proxies should be enough for this. Is there any reason not to use them?
On 09 Apr 2015, at 20:31, Kos Ddsky kos...@gmail.com wrote:
( note: you can view this message as a gist @
https://gist.github.com/kosich/375da99403c76bc75bbd
https://gist.github.com/kosich/375da99403c76bc75bbd )
On Apr 9, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Jordan Harband ljh...@gmail.com wrote:
One advantage of this approach is that more spec magic can be implemented
in terms of the language - it would also make subclassed arrays more
versatile instead of having to always be a Proxy.
see
One advantage of this approach is that more spec magic can be implemented
in terms of the language - it would also make subclassed arrays more
versatile instead of having to always be a Proxy.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Proxies should be enough for
Alan Schmitt wrote:
We found this by looking into loop unrolling, so it would be great if
completion values could propagate across loop iterations.
Definitely. Thanks for finding this!
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
1. one will have to provide access to all `Array.prototype.methods`
2. proxies will be slower
3. bad readability
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
An alternative that was discussed at one point was to invert this idea:
* Arrays get the methods that Maps already have: `get(index)` and `set(index,
value)`. Advantage: one could support negative indices. That is, the following
two expressions would be equivalent.
```js
arr.get(-1)
FWIW: agreed with others, it looks a pretty pointless sugar.
It doesn't seem to bring anything new or that needed to the language.
-1 here
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, liorean lior...@gmail.com wrote:
Do we really need it?
Your «foo(1, ?, 2);» is equivalent to «a=foo(1,a,2)».
Your «foo(?,
Do we really need it?
Your «foo(1, ?, 2);» is equivalent to «a=foo(1,a,2)».
Your «foo(?, 1, ???);» is equivalent to «(a,...b)=foo(a,1,...b)».
Your «foo(1, ???, 2);» is equivalent to «(...a)=foo(...[1,...a,2])».
Also, the ? token is already taken by the ternary conditional
operator. Do we really
12 matches
Mail list logo
