it (the character properties, however done) not
be raised?
[1]
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:extend_regexps#extending_regexps_for_unicode_ranges
Norbert
On Jan 3, 2012, at 4:51 , Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hello,
in certain application, Unicode de/normalization and possibility to
query
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 16 January 2012 23:18, David Hermandher...@mozilla.com wrote:
The goal that is missing, and what I believe is the single most
important part of my New Year's email, is:
9. Allow programmers to continue thinking of JS as a single
cohesive language.
This is a
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:45 AM, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Clearly(!) a set-if-not-present method should not be misnamed
get.
I like the optional sentinel-meaning-not-found for get, and
setDefault per Python as Tab pointed out. Agree they should
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
An updated draft is available at the usual place
(http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts )
That draft incorporated decisions made at the Nov. 2011 TC39 meeting.
However, note that this draft also contains a significant amount of
still in
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík mailto:he...@mailbox.sk
January 15, 2012 1:24 AM
Nothing is going to match Smalltalk on this. Keyword parameters are
not even on the map because object literals suck the oxygen out of the
room. And then you'll want to get rid of the || for empty block
parameters
Lasse Reichstein wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Herby Vojčíkhe...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Thank you, it helped.
It is the fact that in ES up till now, {} block were always delimited by a
{} blocks which are parts of the same control structure.
I did not talk about free blocks, but
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 7:55 AM
To: Axel Rauschmayer
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: Block lambda grammar: BlockArguments
Nothing is going to match Smalltalk on this. Keyword parameters are not even
on the map because object literals suck the
, 2012 11:05 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: François REMY ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Block Lambdas: break and continue
Herby Vojčík
January 14, 2012 1:46 PM
=== Brendan Eich wrote ===
This doesn't address Herby's TCP-violating wish for a non-return that
completes the block-lambda's control flow
Hi,
your 'for call {|| ...}' is great and simple solution for (unlabeled) break,
but it is not so for continue. For either continue could have the redesigned
meaning I sketched out in my last post, but then you need expression to
specify; or you want the legacy meaning of go on with the next
it works as continue in forEach and every, but not in some
Sorry, mistake: it works as continue in forEach and some, but not in every
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Herby Vojčík
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:13 PM
To: Grant Husbands ; Brendan Eich
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:56 PM
To: Grant Husbands
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Block Lambdas: break and continue
...
block-Other ideas?
/be
===
I sent an expression-less continue and break elaboration today. at
11:something
Hello,
I think it is a concern, too, but from other point of view. By lambdaing the
block, we got an added value of TCP (that is, return return from outer
function) but we lost the ability of the lambda block to early local return
the value itself.
Take example of forEach: it has no
I realized 'break' semantics is in no way enforceable in lambda-block
control structure, and each early return is in fact 'continue' (which may
stop the loop or whatever depending on the value).
Also, since in lambda-block, | character could be used to distinguish it
from keyword-loop-continue.
=== David Herman wrote ===
This *may* not violate TCP (I'm not quite sure), but I'm not enthusiastic
about the idea. The semantics is significantly more complicated, and it
requires you to understand whether a higher-order function like forEach is
catching these exceptions or not. So it
: Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:16 PM
To: François REMY
Cc: Herby Vojčík ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Block Lambdas: break and continue
François REMY
January 14, 2012 1:01 PM
If we want to avoid to break TCP, we can go with “throw break;” and “throw
continue;”.
This doesn't address
Hello,
what is the policy and projected outcome (in spec, grammer-definition-wise
as well as described-abstraction-wise) of the diiferent kinds of {...}
blocks?
There is plain code block, an object-literal, module block, class block,
lambda-block. Maybe I missed some use case.
My question
Would it be hard to bring in Smalltalkish 8r377? Another (and similar to 0)
special char for specific radix - well, wouldn’t it be better to include a
letter for all radixes (CoffeeScript can maybe take it on, too).
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Thursday, January 12,
are
problematic. None of them is problematic there, but it is on the other
thread, anyway. Here I only wanted to here about either code or data,
nothing in between idea.
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:35 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: es-discuss
and consistent use of building elements within each group is a Good
Thing (tm). (as I am writing it, it associated me loose coupling and high
cohesion).
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:26 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Blocks
Hi,
for a function, you can instead of
method: function (args) { body },
use the convenient (and non-enumerating)
method (args) { body }
in literal / class.
But for a generator
gen: function* (args) { body }
what can you use to create a generator method?
Would
*gen (args) { body }
This is interesting issue. There is a subtle difference between prototype
chain is the shared part Self mindset and the prototype chain is fallback
delegation mindset. Though I knew of Self and knew it had an impact on
Javascript creation, I had always an impression that in Javascript (having
delegation and creation of
own property by Object.defineProperty is not an error; and creation of own
property by assignment should be allowed; and inability to do it is indeed
an error.
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Herby Vojčík
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:09 PM
To: Allen Wirfs
AM
To: es-discuss
Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts
On Jan 4, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hi,
as I already posted in the parallel thread, there is that strawman called
do expression by dherman that does just that.
I feel like crying
Hi,
I think Allen had another point. What you are counting, are semantic modes
of the code, that is, runtime.
What Allen counts, are specification modes of the language, that is,
compilation.
These are different beans, as he said earlier.
Things that Allen defines (afaict) are:
-
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Axel Rauschmayer
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:11 PM
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock
Cc: Mark S. Miller ; Brendan Eich ; es-discuss Steen
Subject: Re: ES6 doesn't need opt-in
...
As a human, I would want an ES6 trigger to appear as early as possible. I
wouldn’t
This proposal tries not to add new entities into the language, it only tries
to take what already is there and reusing it mercilessly. Also number of
abstractions is lowered, since some of them could be implemented with
existing ones, with minimal changes. The result is compact, lesser, more
Yeah, it looks. And it needs no special case in used in var.
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Nadav Shesek
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:00 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: mikesam...@gmail.com ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts
There was a suggestion for CoffeeScript, which
(original article in
http://blog.herby.sk/blosxom/Programming/ES-next/boolean-shortcut.html)
Hello, what about shorter way to express booleans?
Booleans are very nice concept, but can get bulky. That is why people may
avoid using it, sometimes. Moreover, booleans are often put inside nice
without the
keyword function it is a non-enumerable data property definition whose name
is the function name.
So it is non-enumerable, writable and configurable, as generally presumed
for methods.
Could it be fixed?
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Herby Vojčík
Sent: Tuesday, January 03
curlie that contains some form of action to perform).
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: François REMY
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Herby Vojčík ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts
I agree that code block is a complex feature that is (almost) never used
-Pôvodná správa-
From: François REMY
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Herby Vojčík ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts
BTW, I think the reason of your inconsistency is a bug : eval({}) should
return undefined, as in IE9. It seems that node.js has
cannot be a keyword since it is surely used in _lots_ of places as a
variable name).
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Maël Nison
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:56 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: François REMY ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: No code block without introductory keyword
Then, why not to put every feature on ES6 mode only and backporting them one
by one, giving time for each backport to see if it really works and not
putting effort to backport another one until the previous one is generally
accepted as safe?
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Allen
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Mike Samuel
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 6:29 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: François REMY ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts
2012/1/4 Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk:
Curse that eval-uation of a code block! This prevents not only this, but a
lot
: Herby Vojčík
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:51 PM
To: François REMY ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: No code block without introductory keyword (was: Re:
Booleanshortcuts)
Hi,
what you proposed seems like a pretty good idea (at least imho).
All other uses of {...} as code block have
Hi,
as I already posted in the parallel thread, there is that strawman called
do expression by dherman that does just that.
I feel like crying when I see how powerful data constructs could be if not
hampered by possible to parse as code block ambiguity.
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:56 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: François REMY ; mikesam...@gmail.com ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts
On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hi,
as I already posted in the parallel thread, there is that strawman called
do expression by dherman
Ok, thanks.
If my opinion counts, then I am definitely at the side of methods should be
writable and configurable unless declared const. ;-)
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:13 AM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Mike Samuel
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 6:29 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: François REMY ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts
2012/1/4 Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk:
Curse that eval-uation of a code block! This prevents not only this, but a
lot
Hi,
let's assume a constructor than calls `this.reset(...)` method in the
process of initialization of an instance; and that, this method sets up lot
of object properties to set up initial state, including private ones using
`private(this).foo = bar;` kind of statements.
It seems to me
Hello,
binary ftw. See http://jsperf.com/array-repeat/4 Array.prototype.repeatD.
And I also tried push.apply in repeatC (not to copy over the array using
concat but grow it in place until possible) and it really surprised me it
was that much slower. Concat is probably heavily optimized.
Hello,
form what I understood in the class proposal, I can write a code like this:
(function () { return private(this).foo; }).apply(objectWithPrivateFoo);
and it will work.
Is it so? Isn’t then the notion of per-object private impossible having
dynamic language with first-class function and
Hello,
in certain application, Unicode de/normalization and possibility to query
what group the character is is vital, but ECMAScript does not have these
methods nor did I see them in any of the proposals?
Are they planned? Or can they be added?
Thanks, Herby
, January 03, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: Rick Waldron ; Adam Shannon ; Mariusz Nowak ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Array.prototype.repeat
repeatD(10) returns 17 copies, not 10.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Hello,
binary ftw. See http
: Mark S. Miller
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:31 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Is private really private?
*Only* if that code appears appears within the text of the class of which
objectWithPrivateFoo is an instance. foo is what we call a class private
instance
Hello,
overall I believe in making classes and literals as close as possible. I
think at least semantics of things they have in common should be identical.
In http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes, this is written:
By default, data properties define enumerable prototype
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Andreas Rossberg
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:06 PM
To: Tom Van Cutsem
Cc: Brendan Eich ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Are Private name and Weak Map the same feature? and the Assoc
API
The only thing I'm worried about at this point is that there has to
Hello,
I see some discrepancies between dynamic slot-based ES versus concept of
private per-object state.
The main problem seems to be that I can do this:
(function() { return private(this).secret; }).call(obj);
In that case, I can read (and also write) object's private property at will.
But
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Tom Van Cutsem
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:42 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: Andreas Rossberg ; Brendan Eich ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Are Private name and Weak Map the same feature? and the Assoc
API
2011/12/21 Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk From: Andreas
Hello,
I see error here. Unless I misunderstood something, in present state it so
that:
var n = Name();
proxy[n] // triggers handler.get(target, n.public);
proxy[n.public] // triggers handler.get(target, ToString(n.public));
and n.public is object, not string. So get handler can easily
, this is
true for set handler as well (and delete, too, ..., any one that has to deal
with private name).
Isn’t it?
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Tom Van Cutsem
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 4:50 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: David Bruant ; Brendan Eich ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Are Private
-
From: David Bruant
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:22 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: One-time .public
Le 17/12/2011 19:03, Herby Vojčík a écrit :
Hello,
I saw some concerns about security of name.public and possible leak of
correspondence between public and its
Hello,
I've come with the idea how to let proxies forward private names without
compromising the private name and the value stored under it, as well.
Please, could revise it and find the flaws?
Thank you, Herby
The proposal:
1. for the [[Get]] handler (scenario when that is called with
Hello,
from my point the scenario that:
delete lib.toRussianName;
then it still:
typeof lib.toRussianName; // function, Trollface ;D
is much more acceptable (it happens everyday - there are non-writable
properties everywhere), than the scenario where I cannot transform
Hello,
I see some discrepancies between dynamic slot-based ES versus concept of
private per-object state.
The main problem seems to be that I can do this:
(function() { return private(this).secret; }).call(obj);
In that case, I can read (and also write) object's private property at will.
That's why I proposed first-class phantoms in gist: beasts that typeof
to phantom, ToBoolean to false, ToNumber to 0, are wrapping a
function, [[Call]] calls that function, [[Get]] and [[Prototype]]
delegates to that function ([[Class]] is questionable) and rest does not
work ([[Set]]
Hello,
I saw some concerns about security of name.public and possible leak of
correspondence between public and its name. Maybe it can be solved by simple
trick (though it will have some implication of certain parts of code). That
is, each time name.public is read, _new_ object will be
Errata: I meant withOUT re-generating it, so it can do the comparision.
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Herby Vojčík
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:03 PM
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: One-time .public
Hello,
I saw some concerns about security of name.public and possible leak
Hello,
I have read some articles on wiki.ecmascript.org as well as some post here.
It seems | operator (which I only recently understood that it was probably
meant to be the generalization arrow hollow top turned sideways :-) ) is
used two ways.
As I understand, it was proposed (and I am
. :-/
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 8:55 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Subject: Re: | ambiguity
Literal does matter, because otherwise (non-literal) the operator would
mutate the RHS's [[Prototype]] internal property, or else do an unspecified
clone of the RHS (which
that it
can do slightly different things for them.
I also apologize to those authors whom I charged with incorrect use of |.
It was me who was mistaken.
Herby
-Pôvodná správa-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:57 PM
To: Herby Vojčík
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re
401 - 461 of 461 matches
Mail list logo
