We tried to do this in the early Harmony era. We never managed to get this
to work without unacceptable performance and semantic issues. If you dig
around the archives looking for scoped object extensions or method
extensions you can see the discussion that was had.
It seems like
There used to be a proposal in the ES5 timeframe for cascade expressions.
This is what later made it into Dart using the `..` syntax. For ES the
syntax was using `.{`. The proposal never gained a lot of traction so it
was removed.
https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/issues/405
On Mon,
d. If a source file is imported it is parsed using the Module production.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015, 09:03 Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com wrote:
Fill in the blank.
In ES 2015, a JS source file is treated as a module if _.
a. it exports anything
b. it imports anything
c. both a and b
, is not by default evaluated in strict mode?
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
d. If a source file is imported it is parsed using the Module production.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015, 09:03 Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Fill in the blank
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:44 AM Alan Schmitt alan.schm...@polytechnique.org
wrote:
...other email clients may also have this feature.
And you can mute whole threads in Gmail (and Inbox).
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/47787?hl=en
___
probably a little more for Sweet.js macros than this.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 14:48 Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Dňa 20. júna 2015 19:31:18 CEST používateľ Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com napísal:
ES'15 provides dedicated method syntax. What are your use cases
ES'15 provides dedicated method syntax. What are your use cases that are
not covered by methods?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:13 PM Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
There already exists a syntax for lexically bound functions, but couldn't
there be an unbound counterpart? I am aware I
Caitlin, in that example a normal Set works just as well. It can get gc'ed
when you leave the iterate function.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015, 11:25 Caitlin Potter caitpotte...@gmail.com wrote:
You could use it to avoid bugs involving circular references when
iterating, for example:
```js
function
Don't worry. It is going to be spec'ed as part of the module loader spec.
http://whatwg.github.io/loader/
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:47 AM John Barton johnjbar...@google.com wrote:
This same claim could be made about every item in ECMAScript.
Implementation variation in ModuleSpecifiers is no
Still, the callback for forEach is called with 3 arguments; value, index
and the array.
This is clearly documented in the spec and mdn and other resources.
On Thu, May 14, 2015, 10:42 Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/15, Emanuel Allen emanuelal...@hotmail.com wrote:
I filed one on us: https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=4087
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:25 PM Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On May 7, 2015, at 12:50 PM, Francisco Tolmasky wrote:
In the existing implementations I’ve tried, it appears I can’t do this:
class
entries() returns an iterator.
To sort you need to convert to an array first.
let a = [...map.entries()];
a.sort()
On Wed, May 6, 2015, 08:37 mohan.radhakrish...@cognizant.com wrote:
That line matches my Java code almost exactly. My traceur transpiler
though throws ‘TypeError:
User agents can start to implement but shipping is gated on a loader spec.
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:54 AM Matthew Phillips matt...@bitovi.com wrote:
How can user agents implement import/export without the loader spec?
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Florent FAYOLLE
To add one more option. You can create a service worker that loads a single
zip file from the server and then splits it up for the client.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 10:48 Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
Indeed, there is no built-in facility for bundling since as explained in
this thread
new.target is available in functions.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 21:02 C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net wrote:
Is there any way to access `new.target` using ES5 syntax?
It appears that the correct way to create a subclass using ES5 syntax is:
```
function MyPromise(executor) {
var self
Allen, this could never have happened without you. Thank you for all the
hard work.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:32 AM Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Congratulations, everyone, on this milestone, and thanks for your
work. Looking back all the way to ES5, it's striking just how
(BE), Erik Arvidsson (EA), Adam Klein
(AK), Jordan Harband (JHD), Mark Miller (MM), Istvan Sebestyen (IS), Jafar
Husain (JH), Rick Waldron (RW)
## Private state continued
KS: the nested stuff part of the private state implementation might be
more controversial, but please note that it's separable.
KS
Traceur does not give any history on this but I also remember having this
discussion in a f2f meeting. It was all about js has always been mutable,
lets not change that. If you want immutability you have it with `const f =
class {}`.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:51 AM Andreas Rossberg
Eric, you can design your own language and have that compile to JS. Then
you can get exactly what you want.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015, 13:51 Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Eric Elliott e...@paralleldrive.com
wrote:
I know I've raised all these issues on
Why do you want to do this?
It is an antipattern that we have covered before.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:41 PM Guilherme Souza 19gu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering how one could check if a given function is a generator
function, is a cross-realm way:
```
let f = function(){}
Classes are more similar to function expressions which do have an internal
const binding.
One way to desugar ClassDeclaration is to desugar it into a let binding for
a ClassExpression. [1]
let Foo = class Foo extends expr {};
I would prefer if we didn't change the spec, not because I think it
No that would not work either. You want an object that has its
[[Prototype]] set to MyClass.prototype.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 02:55 Marius Gundersen gunder...@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose would be defining a class whose instances don't have
Object.prototype on their prototype chain. If
Making it a dynamic error at class definition time to extend null would
work but the motivation for not doing that was that someone might want to
create a class that has a {__proto__: null} prototype. Personally, I would
be fine with saying that this case is so rare that it would be better to
have
Another option would be to throw. Then the caller can tell that they did
something that was not expected by the inner iterator.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015, 08:43 Salvador de la Puente González
sa...@unoyunodiez.com wrote:
From my point of view, it should do nothing if there is no throw() method
to
It used to be the case that `export default` was just syntactic sugar for
exporting something with the name default.
export default 42;
was the same as
const x = 42;
export {x as default};
More importantly this symmetry was very useful on the import side as well
as when reexporting default
I looked into it in more details and I seem to have been mistaken.
*default* is just internal spec name that is needed for hoisting
FunctionDeclaration and to create the required anonymous binding.
On Thu Jan 29 2015 at 4:20:15 PM Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
It used
How is this different from other TDZ (which happens with let and const
bindings)?
On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 1:52:14 PM Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
Hi all,
We've been working on an experimental implementation of ES6 class syntax
in WebKit [1]. And we've found that keeping this in
This is a bug in Traceur.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014, 11:35 Gary Guo nbdd0...@hotmail.com wrote:
From the specification I saw `yield` is being explicitly declared as an
possible Identifier in non-strict mode, and there `let`, `static` are
parsed as identifier first. However, I did not see anyway to
Keeping syntax minimal, simple and unsurprising is part of our job.
Why do you want this?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014, 09:41 Caridy Patino car...@gmail.com wrote:
No.
On Dec 15, 2014, at 6:26 AM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
What about this:
export default var a, b, c;
is equivalent
On Wed Nov 12 2014 at 1:33:52 AM James Long longs...@gmail.com wrote:
After a brief twitter conversation last night
(https://twitter.com/lbljeffmo/status/532402141001179136) I thought
I'd post some thoughts I've been having about async/await.
I feel like I'm about to walk into a pit where
A file that is imported is treated as a module. That's it.
On Oct 19, 2014 1:50 PM, Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that module code is implicitly in strict mode.
In an ES6 environment, what causes a .js file to be treated as a module?
Does that happen automatically
We learnt this the hard way.
There are pages [1] out there that check if `values in object` and now
that ends up being true for Array instances.
[1] Microsoft Outlook Calendar web app (part of Exchange Outlook Web Access)
--
erik
___
es-discuss
:53 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
[1] Microsoft Outlook Calendar web app (part of Exchange Outlook Web
Access)
Microsoft could ship a fix in a point release, right? They surely already
provide security patches that admins must install anyway, if they want to
keep their users (and their data) safe
Seems reasonable but it is too late to make any changes to ES6.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ron Buckton rbuck...@chronicles.org
wrote:
I recall from earlier discussions on this list that the reason
`Set.prototype.add` returns `this` is to support chained calls to the set,
to add
Removing Set.prototype.entries and Set.prototype.keys might make sense. I'm
not really sure why we added them. Probably for consistency.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Are we OK with this? Seems like removing `entries`, `keys` and providing
own
This is legacy octal numbers. They are required for web compat.
Use strict mode to fix this.
On Oct 3, 2014 8:15 AM, Jorge Chamorro jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote:
$ node
04+05
9
040+050
72
Is that right? Isn't it a bit of a mess/wtf? Is it going to stay so in the
future?
Thank you,
--
, Rick!
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
## 4.4 Number('0b0101'). NaN or not?
(Erik Arvidsson)
EA: Previous discussion:
https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/c61f48cea5f2339a1ec65ca89827c8cff170779b/es6/2014-04/apr-9.md#46-updates-to-parseint
The static error is problematic. I'm pretty sure that engines that do lazy
parsing of functions is not going to report static errors before doing a
full parse of the function.
I think we need to either enforce this or remove this restriction. Anything
in between will lead to inconsistent behavior
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Brian Genisio briangeni...@gmail.com
wrote:
FYI, you can also see this behavior in Node.js (v0.11.14)
node --harmony --strict-mode
V8's support of let is far from spec compliant. Stuff under --harmony is
incomplete, buggy and may have security holes. Do not
Last time this was tried the conclusion was that the current format using
the stack property as a string could not be standardized. Different
browsers use different format and therefore the format can not be changed
without breaking existing code.
The conclusion was that we needed to use a
Until modules are shipping in engines we will have to continue to add
globals.
On Sep 22, 2014 8:03 PM, John Barton johnjbar...@google.com wrote:
A way to start would add new built-ins only in modules.
jjb
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com
wrote:
import * as m from './file.js'
Imports module instance object. It only creates one binding, m in the
example above.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, John Lenz concavel...@gmail.com wrote:
As per http://www.2ality.com/2014/09/es6-modules-final.html
I still feel like Kevin's point has not yet been resolved. How can we make
this work with today's patterns?
import {C} from './C.js';
function D() {
C.call(this);
}
D.prototype = {
__proto__: C.prototype,
constructor: D,
...
}
Now assume that C.js initially used the ES5 pattern above
Adding a new way to interpret properties is a bad idea. No engine is going
to optimize this new special form of [[Get]] and this will deopt all calls
that directly depend on descriptors.
On Sep 15, 2014 4:56 AM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
IIRC Allen proposed to change
Generators are not implicit strict. Only modules and classes are.
On Sep 12, 2014 6:30 AM, Carl Smith carl.in...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that ES6 will allow implicit opt-in for generators, with the body
of the generator being ES6, so it can yield. It also seems that the plan is
that the body
On Sep 12, 2014 6:39 PM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
`new^` is lexically scoped, just this `this` and `super`. If an arrow
function references `new^` it is the value of the closest
I think you are confusing the internal spec function from the API function
deliverChangeRecords.
Object.deliverChangeRecords always returns undefined. It is the internal
[[DeliverChangeRecords]] that gets called until the queue of change records
is exhausted.
The point of
For or loops are spec'ed to call the internal spec function, IteratorClose
when there is an abrupt completion in the loop body (an exception was
thrown, return and break)
The point of this was to allow cleaning up the iterator in case it holds on
to some kind of resource.
The problem is that
Right now String(symbol) throws because it uses ToString which is spec'ed
to throw.
I'm suggesting that we special case String(value) to do a type check for
Symbol and return the same string as Symbol.prototype.toString.call(value)
does.
:
Le 12 août 2014 à 22:35, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Right now String(symbol) throws because it uses ToString which is spec'ed
to throw.
I'm suggesting that we special case String(value) to do a type check for
Symbol and return the same string
If I recall correctly the intent was that __proto__ was special syntax for
setting the [[Prototype]]. So only three following cases are setting the
[[Prototype]]
{__proto__: object}
{'__proto__': object}
{__proto__: object}
Other combinations set an own property:
{['__proto__']: object}
definitions.
Allen
On Jun 25, 2014, at 8:09 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
If I recall correctly the intent was that __proto__ was special syntax for
setting the [[Prototype]]. So only three following cases are setting the
[[Prototype]]
{__proto__: object}
{'__proto__': object}
{__proto__: object
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
I think use strict is a special care where we were trying to simulate
what we would allow in a statement composed of reserved words and escapes
are now allowed in keywords.
This is definitely something that I've needed before. The logical place for
this is as part of the console API which is I believe has no spec (defacto
standard).
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
This most recently came up in the context of creating
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Calvin Metcalf calvin.metc...@gmail.com
wrote:
One other option could be for import name from 'path' to resolve to the
module body there is no default export, thanks to the static analysis
you'll always know when default is present.
That is a refactoring
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Domenic Denicola wrote:
Another way of guiding the decision: I don't quite recall where the spec
landed `{ x: 1, [x]: 2 }`, but we should probably be consistent with that.
*Mark Miller:* I am ok with removing the
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Chris Toshok tos...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Calvin Metcalf calvin.metc...@gmail.com
wrote:
One other option could be for import name from 'path
initialization functions and the possibility to observe an object
that never went through its constructor.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
How does this work with legacy
would set up the internal DOM wrapper pointer, never exposing a
non initialized DOM object to user code.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
What about the other direction?
class B {
constructor(x) {
this.x = x;
}
static [Symbol.create
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/18/14, 11:39 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
This also fits how @@create works for DOM, where the creation of the
instance would set up the internal DOM wrapper pointer, never exposing a
non initialized DOM object to user
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
This all looks at the past, where the DOM is warty as hell (I can say
that, I started it). What about the future?
Much the same, from what I understand. The parser
Remember that
```js
class C {
constructor() {}
}
assert(C === C.prototype.constructor);
```
What would `C.prototype.constructor` look like with your proposal? Is `C
=== C[@@new]`?
On Tue Jun 17 2014 at 3:22:05 PM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Allen asked me to fill out
On Jun 17, 2014 7:44 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
So far, I prefer your proposal to draft ES6 by a lot -- especially since
I missed the hideous Number special-casing spread around in the draft!
I don't.
How does this work with legacy classes?
function B() {
this.x = 1;
}
That is why you need to implement @unscopables too.
On Jun 16, 2014 7:08 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
It turns out there are a number of sites (such as mobile.twitter.com)
that are property detecting .entries on objects, and that means that
they're breaking when
On Fri Jun 13 2014 at 3:41:02 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Jun 13, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski wrote:
function Foo () {}
Foo.prototype[Symbol.create] = null;
@@create methods are normally defined as methods of the constructor
function rather than
On Thu Jun 12 2014 at 11:38:22 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
It when we start trying to give a function both this-dependent and
this-independent functional behavior that we get into the weeds.
Yes. Lets not do that :-)
___
On Thu Jun 12 2014 at 11:28:12 AM, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net
wrote:
It would be slightly more JavaScripty to have
Date.prototype.[[DateValue]] exist, and be set to the epoch or some
such.
+1
1. Let date be the this value.
2. If Type(date) is not Object then, throw a TypeError
Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
value in for-of loops.
The following test passes using the spec algorithms:
var c = 0;
for (var x of null) {
c++;
}
assert.equal(c, 0);
However, if we get a null value here we are most likely just masking an
user bug.
I
Another way of thinking of IsConstructor is whether the function has an own
prototype property or not. The only exception[*] there is bound functions
where one would need to know if the [[TargetFunction]] IsConstructor or not.
[*] Proxies are oddballs here. All Proxies have a [[Construct]] method
On Mon Jun 09 2014 at 12:25:42 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
If a magically in-scope binding is necessary to access module meta
capabilities, giving it a name like `module` or `System.currentModule`
would be much better.
`System.currentModule` requires magic. It
Also, @Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com argued that `module` is a common
variable name (QUnit uses it) and reserving it is a non starter.
`import {thisModule as yourName} from '@moduleMeta'` (bike shedding TBD) is
a promising path forward.
On Mon Jun 09 2014 at 11:28:59 AM, Matthew Robb
Most of these could just be methods of iterators and then they could be
used for different data structures seemlessly.
On Mon Jun 09 2014 at 3:19:20 AM, Calvin Metcalf calvin.metc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Many of the Set specific methods would also be useful if they worked on
the keys of Maps.
On
Agreed. Side discussions are sometimes needed but please make sure we keep
track of what was discussed. For the last TC39 I asked everyone that did a
breakout session to take notes and share these. Caridy did a really good
job sharing these notes.
On Mon Jun 09 2014 at 11:27:12 AM, Kevin Smith
Traceur definitely has a lot of exports in a single module.
https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/blob/master/src/syntax/Parser.js#L15
We do not however, use the `module` form since we want to get rid of the
extra Get (which deopts switch statements in some engines).
On Mon Jun 09 2014 at
This was never resolved and the spec is incomplete here
On Wed Sep 25 2013 at 6:17:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
So here is another concern, about the scheme we agreed to last week.
It needs to match a found own property against the possibility of an own
@@unscopable
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.dewrote:
* Hard-coding `with` to ignore only Array.prototype.values.
My main use case for unscopable is for DOM. Today we cannot add nice named
-newobjectenvironment
Allen
On May 1, 2014, at 3:00 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
This was never resolved and the spec is incomplete here
On Wed Sep 25 2013 at 6:17:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
So here is another concern, about the scheme we
Environment Record is always the empty list.
It's never populated.
Allen
On May 1, 2014, at 3:00 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvidsson at gmail.com
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss wrote:
* This was never resolved and the spec is incomplete here
* * On Wed Sep 25 2013 at 6:17:32
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
• Changed length property value of Symbol, Map, Set, WeakSet, WeakMap to 1
to be consistent with most other built-in constructors
We discussed this before and wanted new built in function lengths to be
consistent
I completely agree. Adding return() will make adoption suffer.
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:05:14 AM, Andreas Rossberg
rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 15 April 2014 18:06, Allen Wirfs-Brock allen.wirfsbr...@gmail.com
wrote:
AWB: We _could_ add a `return()` method.
... It's a bigger change,
On Tue Apr 15 2014 at 10:27:23 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
## Decorators for ES7
(Yehuda Katz)
Slides: (need slides)
YK: Presenting aspects of common use cases not yet covered by ES6 `class`.
Knockout.js example (compute the value of a property)
WH: Do you want to
The done function is injected by the Traceur test runner for async tests.
It is standard mocha stuff.
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:06:23 AM, Mark Volkmann
r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com wrote:
I looked at the async keyword examples in Traceur for the first time
today. Cool stuff!
IIUC, when a
?
Take a look at the work Erik Arvidsson has done so far:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:error_stack
Rick
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Cheers
I think we can settle this now.
Lets allow an argument.
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:27:26 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi,
I don't see the point of throwing an error when calling .next('foo') on
a newborn generator. We don't throw an error on
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2511
We now have our first setter in the spec. However, it is speced to return
the value itself. This is pretty inconsistent with WebIDL and the common
practice to not include a return value in setters in object literals.
Can we get the spec changed to
that the
delete does nothing):
eval (let x=5; delete x;);
(bug https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id= )
Allen
On Feb 17, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I'm also fine with 3.
On Mon Feb 17 2014 at 10:39:47 AM, Jeremy Martin jmar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Happy to concede to #3
1 or 3. We have already shot down similiar situations to 2 before. I don't
think it is worth bringing this up again.
1 is the least surprise. It is just bad practice, but so is eval and non
strict mode in the first place.
3 is fine if you think as if there was a block around the whole thing
On Fri Feb 14 2014 at 2:20:07 PM, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net
wrote:
Thanks. I was missing the relationship between System and Loader somehow.
So System.import is intended to be exactly the same as the import keyword
(except promise-returning).
There is a big difference here. The
I also find the mutation of System.normalize slightly worrisome but I do
believe that good programming practice here would mean that you would call
the previous version of it after your changes. Mostly like a pre-advice.
{
let locate = System.locate;
System.locate = function(...) {
if
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Timothy Quinn tim.c.qu...@gmail.com wrote:
On a related note, one can only dream that formalized OOP class
definitions can be put into the ECMAScript specification so we can move
away from the lack of consistency for OOP. The flexibility is really
hurting the
Function name is in the latest ES6 draft.
On Fri Feb 07 2014 at 11:15:31 PM, Timothy Quinn tim.c.qu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Digging into ECMA-262, I cannot find this noted but it appears to be
implemented in V8 and SpiderMonkey.
Mozilla states this as
# Jan 30 Meeting Notes
John Neumann (JN), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Yehuda Katz (YK), Eric
Ferraiuolo (EF), Erik Arvidsson (EA), Rick Hudson (RH), Matt Sweeney
(MS), Dmitry Soshnikov (DS), Sebastian Markbage (SM), Ben Newman (BN),
Jeff Morrison (JM), Reid Burke (RB), Waldemar Horwat (WH), Doug
# Jan 29 Meeting Notes
John Neumann (JN), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Yehuda Katz (YK), Eric
Ferraiuolo (EF), Erik Arvidsson (EA), Rick Hudson (RH), Matt Sweeney
(MS), Dmitry Soshnikov (DS), Sebastian Markbage (SM), Ben Newman (BN),
Jeff Morrison (JM), Reid Burke (RB), Waldemar Horwat (WH), Doug
# Jan 28 Meeting Notes
John Neumann (JN), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Yehuda Katz (YK), Eric
Ferraiuolo (EF), Erik Arvidsson (EA), Rick Hudson (RH), Matt Sweeney
(MS), Dmitry Soshnikov (DS), Sebastian Markbage (SM), Ben Newman (BN),
Jeff Morrison (JM), Reid Burke (RB), Waldemar Horwat (WH), Doug
V8 has no forEach.
On Feb 3, 2014 11:51 PM, Vic9 vic99...@yandex.ru wrote:
There was a SpiderMonkey bug1, and even a patch, for this for quite a
while. The patch now landed and will be in Firefox 29.
V8 got fixed last week too
code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3069
but according
V8 got fixed last week too
https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3069
On Mon Feb 03 2014 at 9:23:11 AM, Till Schneidereit
t...@tillschneidereit.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
last 3 points are way too
`export default 1` works.
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-exports
ExportDeclaration :
...
export default AssignmentExpression ;
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Calvin Metcalf
calvin.metc...@gmail.comwrote:
related, is it possible to export anonymous objects?
It falls out of the grammar.
IfStatement can only contain Statement which does not include Declaration
without going through a BlockStatement.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:57 PM, John Lenz concavel...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some old notes that says that let can't be used in some context
where
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John Lenz wrote:
There are three issues in my mind for tooling:
1) should the code be parsed as use strict
2) are import and export and module statements valid
Note no module form in ES6.
module M from
On Jan 27, 2014 2:09 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I'd like to suggest another sense in which you may have gone down a bad
path: you're assuming that await is paired with function*, but it could
instead be (like C#) paired with its own async-function syntactic form.
Let's say for
1 - 100 of 395 matches
Mail list logo
