It's meant as an extension point. I believe some DOM list/array is supposed
to use this.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-array.prototype.concat
I’m not seeing @@isConcatSpreadable being used
Le 3 juin 2015 à 11:08, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de a écrit :
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-array.prototype.concat
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-array.prototype.concat
I’m not seeing @@isConcatSpreadable being used as a
Thank you for picking this up again!
I asked for adding look-behinds back in 2013[1], though I didn't find the
time to come up with an algorithm and read into writing this down for the
specification.
So let's hope this discussion will result in something this time.
Sebastian
[1]
If you want a special Promise (subclass or extended), you should not use
async function since it casts the return value to a standard Promise
Right, there was a proposal that let you override how await works (
https://github.com/jhusain/compositional-functions) but I don't think it's
currently
@Sam Ruby: I think we should indeed go for an extra character. In the
proposals that result in `?[` and similar, it may be possible to define
correctly in the spec, but it would indeed be non-obvious for humans to
interprete, and potentially make the parser slower.
I proposed `??` as a unique
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-array.prototype.concat
I’m not seeing @@isConcatSpreadable being used as a property key anywhere in
the spec.
Thanks!
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de
___
This reminds me: I feel like the spec should've added
Array.prototype[Symbol.isConcatSpreadable] (value:true,
configurable:false, writable:false), and eliminated the final
IsArray() test from
[22.1.3.11](https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-isconcatspreadable).
Would've made
Le 3 juin 2015 à 12:46, Leon Arnott leonarn...@gmail.com a écrit :
This reminds me: I feel like the spec should've added
Array.prototype[Symbol.isConcatSpreadable] (value:true,
configurable:false, writable:false), and eliminated the final
IsArray() test from
This is possibly a code style related question, I studied a little deeper so
this is how I currently learned:
If you want a special Promise (subclass or extended), you should not use async
function since it casts the return value to a standard Promise
If you want to return a promise and attach
A function needs to be defined `async` if you intend to possibly use the
await keyword inside it.
If a function is returning Promise, it MUST be async If a function
depends on an async function, it **MUST be async A further question could
be, if one function only contains some simple then calls
On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Logan Smyth wrote:
To clarify things, since I don't think it's been made abundantly clear, the
example that Sebastian gave would work in a standard ES6 environment,
correct? It is only if the callback were executed synchronously that the
exception would be
Am I missing something obvious in `super((resolve, reject) = this)` ?
First of all, it makes perfect sense for `this` not work work before super
has been called - and it has not been called yet. I think that the crux is
that the promise constructor runs _synchronously_ so when you pass it
`this`
On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Leon Arnott wrote:
This reminds me: I feel like the spec should've added
Array.prototype[Symbol.isConcatSpreadable] (value:true,
configurable:false, writable:false), and eliminated the final
IsArray() test from
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Benjamin Gruenaum benjami...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am I missing something obvious in `super((resolve, reject) = this)` ?
First of all, it makes perfect sense for `this` not work work before super
has been called - and it has not been called yet.
Rather than
It seems like, at least in the case with Promise, it could be solved also
by having the this binding of the executor bound to the promise or have the
promise object passed into the executor as a third argument maybe?
On Jun 2, 2015 10:38 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
With best
15 matches
Mail list logo
