he problem
in my code.
Was this pattern perhaps considered and rejected? Or is there some
liability to the object methods relative to the string comparison that I’m not
seeing? If so, what was/is the rationale there?
Thank you for your time!
> its rejection isn't uncaught, but now both `one` and `two` have no handlers,
> so _both_ will trigger an uncaught rejection error.
>
> 4)
> ```
> var p = Promise.reject(789);
> var one = p.finally(() => {});
> var two = p.finally(() => {});
> var three = p.finally(()
2nd and subsequent ones trigger their own unhandled-rejection warnings.
Thank you!
cheers,
-Felipe Gasper
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Bump++. :)
-F
On 3/16/12 3:56 PM, Lea Verou wrote:
After all these years, ES regular expressions still don't support
lookbehind. It turns out this was discussed in late 2010 [1] and was
heading towards being accepted, but the discussion just stalled. So,
consider this a bump of that thread.
, but will
allow iteration through inherited properties.
This seems to me far more useful in general than the hasOwnProperty() check.
Thoughts?
-Felipe Gasper
cPanel, Inc.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es
On 11/8/11 12:37 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
What’s the use case?
I thought I gave a pretty reasonable one before, but just in case:
In YUI, it’s impossible to use this otherwise-useful pattern:
-
var base_config = { width: 600px };
…
var my_config = Object.create(base_config);
On 11/8/11 1:17 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
What’s the use case?
In YUI, it’s impossible to use this otherwise-useful pattern:
-
var base_config = { width: 600px };
…
var my_config = Object.create(base_config);
my_config.visible = false;
var widget = new Y.Widget(my_config);
-
On 11/8/11 2:19 PM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
Flexibility of shared state?
Are you really corrupting the state of defaults at runtime? Do you
really want changes to your default options to propogate to all objects
extending the defaults?
It’s the same thing as redefining a method inherited from a
On 11/8/11 2:49 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Should ES.next provide sugar for the recommended pattern? To make it
compose with declarations and destructuring in the for head, it should
use a contextual keyword immediately after 'for':
for own (i in o) {
/body/
}
This is a small thing but it might
On 11/8/11 2:19 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Luke Smith wrote:
Sure. People make classes by defining function C(){} and decorating
C.prototype.method1 = function(...){...}, etc. A for-in loop on (new C) will see all the
methods, unlike the case with built-in
On 11/7/11 2:48 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 06/11/2011 15:37, Axel Rauschmayer a écrit :
Claus Reinke could not submit his js-tools discussion group
announcement (interestingly, I could do it for him). And the email I
appended underneath my signature never got through. Can someone
explain the
On 9/12/11 10:07 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
But Doug, just to clarify: You mean that the parsed objects create no
predictable insertion order right? It is actually possible to use
replacer to serialize keys in a particular order, and that might be
enough for what he is looking for (if two
On 9/11/11 5:05 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Felipe Gasper wrote:
Is it possible to get sorted keys:
{a:1,c:3}
…from running JSON.stringify when declaring an object thus:
{c:3,a:1}
JSON objects are unordered. If order is important, then use an array.
That’s actually my point
Hello,
Is it possible to get sorted keys:
{a:1,c:3}
…from running JSON.stringify when declaring an object thus:
{c:3,a:1}
??
-FG
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
().forEach(function(name) {
ret[name] = obj[name]
})
return ret
}
before passing it to JSON.stringify
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Felipe Gasper fel...@felipegasper.com
mailto:fel...@felipegasper.com wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to get sorted keys:
{a:1,c:3
Why does Object.keys() not allow, as an option, iterating through
inherited properties?
-FG
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 9/7/11 11:17 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 07/09/2011 18:11, Felipe Gasper a écrit :
On 9/7/11 11:08 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 07/09/2011 17:33, Felipe Gasper a écrit :
Why does Object.keys() not allow, as an option, iterating through
inherited properties?
I do not have the answer
On 1/9/11 6:02 AM, Jorge wrote:
Or perhaps to overload * ?
'a' * 5
- a
Perl has the “x” operator for things like that...
-FG
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Hi all,
I read with dismay about the deprecation of arguments.callee in
ECMAScript 5.
I can appreciate the security concerns of passing the arguments object
as a parameter to another method, but why not make that the “red flag”
action rather than nixing “arguments” entirely?
e.g. this
19 matches
Mail list logo
