Hi,
I've been reading about WeakMap in the draft. To my surprise, it is
not at all what I thought it would be or what I was hoping to use. At
least that is my understanding.
My use case is in MV* architectures. With current MV* frameworks, a
model holds strong references to the views observing
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
15.16.4.6
Why will callbackfn be called with the first two parameters being the
same? That does not seem like the most practical or intuitive behavior
reduceRight as well, even if it would only do the same as reduce.
Peter Michaux wrote:
In another thread, I'm told there is currently no plans to add the
following to Set.prototype.
some
every
reduce
filter
map
These seem like very natural additions and the type of operations that
one would
Some comments and questions about the Set draft specification...
- - -
Section 15.16 begins with the following which seems to need an English clean-up.
Set objects are collections of ECMAScript language values. A distinct value
may only occur once as elements of a Set’s collection. Distinct
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:08 AM, al...@instantbird.org wrote:
It would be useful to be able to form the intersection and the union of
two Sets. These are natural operations that are currently not part of
the API
In another thread, I'm told there is currently no plans to add the
following to Set.prototype.
some
every
reduce
filter
map
These seem like very natural additions and the type of operations that
one would want to do on sets.
Peter
___
es-discuss
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Marius Gundersen gunder...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing which is impossible to make in JavaScript today is a weakly
referenced event listener system. In such a system an event listener is not
strongly referenced by the event system, so events are only dispatched
to collaborate on this and will present it at the May
meeting. So no, not yet.
As always, suggestions welcome.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
The January 19 2012 meeting
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
I've worked on a generic Set polyfill. It is quite a simple task to
build one but determining if an object is in the set is O(n) with the
following has method.
Set.prototype.has = function
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:44 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
One idea would be that each Set puts a unique marker on each object it
contains
I thought about an approach like this but am looking to avoid mutating
the elements in the set. Thanks though.
Peter
I've worked on a generic Set polyfill. It is quite a simple task to
build one but determining if an object is in the set is O(n) with the
following has method.
Set.prototype.has = function(element) {
for (var i = 0, ilen = this._elements.length; i ilen; i++) {
if (element
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
The January 19 2012 meeting notes recorded here:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-January/019784.html
include At next meeting MarkM will present a tiny API proposal for maps and
sets.
Has this
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
what I would like is to be able to do this:
var sortedArray = array.sort( compare, f );
I think the above is not very readable.
The following is more readable and shows the order in which the more
modular parts
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
if (arr.contains(foo)) {
vs
if (arr.indexOf(foo) !== -1) {
The readability of the above two options is very different. The first
option is far superior as it expresses what the programmer wants to
know. The
I think I misunderstood your intent. Is what you want equivalent to
the following?
arr.map(function(el){return {a:el,b:f(el)};}).sort(function(x, y)
{return x.b y.b;}).map(function(el){return el.a;});
Peter
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon
? 0 : 1; })
When sorting a valid packed array of valid IEEE floating point values, you
take your life in your hands.
/only a bit tongue in cheek
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
I don't know how rich the committee wants to make objects in ES.next.
For example, what about a set.reset method?
Set.prototype.reset = function() {
this.empty();
for (var i = 0, ilen = arguments.length; i ilen; i++) {
}
}
___
es-discuss
Sorry. Incomplete message before and premature send.
Set.prototype.reset = function() {
this.empty();
for (var i = 0, ilen = arguments.length; i ilen; i++) {
this.add(arguments[i]);
}
};
Peter
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
I
Can set.add and set.delete take multiple arguments? This would go
nicely with the spread of operation on an iterate that was discussed
for multiple arguments to the Set constructor.
var set0 = new Set('alpha', 'beta');
set0.add('gamma', 'delta');
var set1 = new Set('epsilon', 'zeta');
If add and delete take multiple arguments, the return value could be
changed from a boolean to the number of elements added or deleted, or
to the set of elements added or deleted?
Peter
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
Can set.add and set.delete take
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
thinking about the add behavior, where no duplicated values will be added,
this argument may cause some logic headache anyway
Set([1, 2, 1]) what should happen ?
I think that should be a set with one
If some piece of code needs to empty a set, it would be good to do
that in a single call
set.empty();
Otherwise we might be left doing the following which could be very inefficient.
set.forEach(function(element) {
set['delete'](element);
});
Peter
as a
possible. The idea behind any Set (outside of ES even) is that it is
just a collection of elements, unordered.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 19:32, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Feb 12, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
In the proposal, iterators for Set are listed
The return value set.delete tells the caller if the set was modified
or not. It would be useful if the return value of set.add did the
same. For example, this way a model in MVC could efficiently know if
and notify observers that a real change to the set actually happened.
) be supported only as the
target of an ES5/6 - ES3 translation. Granted this will take years. But
we'll be living with these choices for many more years after that.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
mailto:petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
The Set proposal has
In the proposal, set objects have no length property. It is common to
want to know the length of a set.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets
For example, it would be good to be able to do the following.
var s = new Set();
s.add('alpha');
s.add('beta');
s.length;
In the proposal, iterators for Set are listed as todo. If engine
implementers have decided to start moving forward implementing Sets,
then it would be great if they could get iteration going sooner than
later.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets
Looking at the
The Set proposal has a delete method. Old ECMAScript implementations
do not allow delete to appear as a bare method name like
set.delete('foo') and it is necessary to write the awkward
set['delete']('foo'). Because of this and knowing polyfills will be
written to support Set in older
/prototypes-as-classes.html#3
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/54867/old-style-and-new-style-classes-in-python
Axel
On Jul 1, 2011, at 1:07 , es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org wrote:
From: Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
Date: June 30, 2011 21:54:47 GMT+02:00
To: es-discuss es-discuss
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:00 PM, David Herman wrote:
I've been concerned about the schedule risk of classes for ES.next
Is the timeline posted somewhere?
- providing idiomatic syntax for calling the superclass
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 22, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Sean Eagan wrote:
I don't think we need any safety check when assigning a method or
accessor getter or setter that
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Terminology (created by me, but I think it explains well what is going on):
- |this| points to the object where property lookup starts. It always points
to the beginning of the prototype chain.
- |here| points to the
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
What is the use case for sideways calls? Can you point me to an example?
You want to allow the API (a.k.a. public methods) of an object to be
overridden, but you don't want the functionality of any non-overidden
API
Alpha.one
b.two(); // Alpha.one Beta.one Beta.one
g.two(); // Alpha.one Beta.one Gamma.one
g.three(); // Beta.one Gamma.one Gamma.one
Peter
On Jun 19, 2011, at 19:44 , Peter Michaux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
It would be nice if super could
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The correspondence is even closer if we slightly extend the new operator.
Using current new operator semantics and my alternative way of defining
SkinnedMeesh and then executing:
let aSM = new
Recently, I've invested time looking at current
compiling-to-JavaScript developments. Although people have been doing
this for many years now, it seems CoffeeScript is making it clear that
being a target of compilation is at least part of JavaScript's future.
The pending additions in browsers of
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 18, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Yet CoffeeScript does not need lambdas with TCP control effects today. It
translates in a straightforward (mostly) transpiling way. Even its
expression-language mapping
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
The language to emulate is Smalltalk, though.
+1 to that; however, the ES class proposal is not very similar to
Smalltalk classes. Others are far more qualified to enumerate the
differences than I am.
For example, how
Something I try to do when designing constructors is to ensure the
constructed objects will be durable. That is, if some code modifies or
breaks parts of the constructed object's exposed interface, the other
parts of the exposed interface should continue working the same as
before. Part of what I
Are static members inherited? What happens in the last line of the
following code?
class Monster {
static allMonsters = [];
constructor() {
Monster.allMonsters.push(this);
}
}
class Dragon extends Monster {
constructor() {}
}
new
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
As promised/threatened:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_lambda_revival
The examples on the wiki page feature calling a function that takes
one block argument and also feature Tennent's correspondence
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
For http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_lambda_revival I
have written up the Ruby-inspired {|x| x * x} syntax.
Alternatives (ignoring keyword issues) that look more like function syntax
(Peter's
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_lambda_revival
Suppose we have a host API to open and close files and we write the
following two functions.
var withFile = function(filename, fn) {
var file
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proper_tail_calls
I notice that in the proper tail calls wiki page that a compliant
interpreter SHOULD implement a call in proper tail position as a
PTC. In order for a programmer to use proper tail calls for
arbitrarily deep recursion, the
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Waldemar walde...@google.com wrote:
Versioning:
script type=application/ecmascript;version=6 (RFC 4329)
use version 6;
module LOL {
...
}
/script
There are good reasons to have the metadata both externally (in the script
tag) and internally (in the
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 26, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
I'm looking at the strawman for guards.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards
I don't quite see how they are created.
I understand this part
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
A minifier could, couldn't it?
function foo(a::MyType) {}
would be minified to
function foo(a) {}
These are not the same function
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Peter Michaux petermich
From: Waldemar walde...@google.com
Date: Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM
Subject: May 24-26 rough meeting notes
Guard Syntax:
Technical aspects ok, but some are worried about the effects of this
change on the ECMAScript style.
What aspects of ECMAScript style were cause for concern? Fear of
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 20, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
An essential part of this proposal is a paren-free call syntax
Why is that essential?
When I
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Brendan,
Thanks for the clarification on that.
I've been following the shorter function syntax discussions pretty closely,
as well as reading the strawman proposals, so please forgive me if this has
been addressed or
, Alex Russell a...@dojotoolkit.org wrote:
I'm sorry, this this argument is entirely circular:
- we have something that works
- it could be better
- but it works, so we don't need anything better
?
On May 21, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Nathan
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Saying JS has function expressions that are wildly popular is jumping to a
conclusion.
How is that jumping to conclusions? All the JavaScript code that I
read uses function expressions.
JS is popular in that it's the
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 21, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
In another thread, some people were suggesting {||}
as an exact alternative to the thin arrow.
Yes, I cited the thread in the strawman. So what? Chopping proposals
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Jorge jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote:
Why the (sudden) urge to copy so many bits ( paren-free, - // =, etc ) of
coffee's syntax ?
I agree. I don't see how Coffeescript deserves to be such a strong
influence with such a short history and limited use.
(does JS
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
'lambda' is not reserved and still overlong. TC39 and this list have been
over this ground before. I don't see anything new in your post to change the
outcome.
TC39 will not introduce *any* new keywords to the
everyone will try to do the same.
Dave
On May 21, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Brendan,
Thanks for the clarification on that.
I've been following the shorter function syntax discussions pretty closely
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
What part of integrated design was unclear?
None of it.
If somehow the whole is rejected, we can pluck out parts and propose them
separately, or better: as part of alternative integrated designs.
Understood.
Neither
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
As promised/threatened:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_lambda_revival
From page:
An essential part of this proposal is a paren-free call syntax
Why is that essential?
Peter
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
On May 17, 2011, at 4:57, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
The goal of pleasing compiler writers should be
to make it possible to compile existing languages like Perl, Ruby,
Python and Scheme to JavaScript
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Yes, and we could add call/cc to make (some) compiler writers even happier.
But users would shoot off all their toes with this footgun, and some
implementors would be hard-pressed to support it. The point is *not * to do
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
But we are going to have to make a decision, and it simply won't
be perfect. We're going to listen to everyone, consider the
technical issues, and at the end of the day, make the best
decision we can with imperfect
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to point out that coffeescript has a huge success and in the end
it's just syntax sugared js.
Can someone give evidence that Coffeescript is actually a success? Has
anyone crawled the web to determine the
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Andrew Dupont mozi...@andrewdupont.net wrote:
On May 7, 2011, at 12:42 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Yes and readability counts. JavaScript's function syntax is already
*highly* usable and readable.
Many people, including me, would disagree.
Do you really
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Andrew Dupont mozi...@andrewdupont.net wrote:
I don't want to get too deep into matters of taste, but I do think the
current syntax is annoyingly verbose for passing lambdas as arguments in
other functions. The fact that it's so verbose ends up hurting
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that this is what compilers and projects like coffeescript are
for. In my opinion, JavaScript itself doesn't need this new syntax
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Thaddee Tyl thaddee@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that David Bruant has a good point. We *need* a shorter syntax
because we advocate the use of map/reduce, etc., which require simple
anonymous functions.
No. We don't need syntactic sugar. The current function
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Thaddee Tyl thaddee@gmail.com wrote:
JavaScript is still seen as a badly object-oriented programming
language by those who still think it is java with a weird syntax.
I think that concpetion has declined a lot as rich clients have forced
people to become
I read Brendan's recent article
http://brendaneich.com/2011/05/my-jsconf-us-presentation/
He asked for community members to make their feelings known and the
es-discuss list as one of the places to do it.
In his article, Brendan shows a slide with the following content
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
But again, you can use 14 characters if you want.
The problem is that the author of the code that I'm reading may have
used the arrow syntax and then I'm stuck reading it.
This is shorthand, and only shorthand. And
ES5 Section 7.8.4 discusses UnicodeEscapeSequence which have four
hexidecimal digits (i.e. \u to \u) and allows specification of
characters on the Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane. Is it possible in
ECMAScript to specify characters on higher planes like the
Supplementary Multilingual
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
People often write the following at the
beginning of functions for optional parameters
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
I finally found time to write up a proposal, sketchy and incomplete, but
ready for some ever-lovin' es-discuss peer review ;-).
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:catchalls
Comments welcome.
Thanks for
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
??= and ?? are too narrowly typed for JS.
I had the impression from the previous thread that you were more in
favor of ??= than ||=. People often write the following at the
beginning of functions for optional parameters
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
Ecma has published their press release announcing that the next version of
the ECMAScript standard will be known as ECMA-262, Fifth Edition
Four is an unlucky number in Japan anyway ;-)
Peter
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
SpiderMonkey has had __noSuchMethod__ for years. The Ten years complaint
you make seems to be against the ECMAScript committee,
Not at all and it is unfortunate it came
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:41 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Not at all and it is unfortunate it came across that way. It is at the
whole chain of events which is long: for the ECMAScript committee to
standardize methodMissing
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Dave Herman dher...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I like many aspects of Ihab and Kris's proposal, but not all.
For example which parts do you like or dislike? The reason I ask, it
would be great if the ServerJS project could use a reasonably liked
subset of the proposal.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Kris Kowal and I plan to present a proposal for ES-Harmony modules in
the upcoming Mountain View meeting. In the interests of giving
everyone a chance to read through our ideas ahead of time, we are
sharing a draft of
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Juriy Zaytsev kan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
[...]
Yes.
Needing new makes some things unnecessarily bulky.
var pts = getRows().map(function(r) {return new Point(r);});
verses just
var pts = getRows().map
The requirement that JavaScript needed to look like Java has long been
lamented. One of the key looks was the new keyword. Many people
don't like the use of the new keyword. Although new is here to
stay, could we obsolete it when using a class sugar?
Peter
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
wrote:
The requirement that JavaScript needed to look like Java has long been
lamented. One of the key looks was the new keyword. Many people
don't
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:
x = x+1
x = {{ var y = x+1; y*2 }}
There's no need to double braces in the = syntax if we require an object
initialiser to be parenthesized:
x = ({p: 1, q: true})
Why
I think tail calls is really an es-discuss (i.e. not es3.x-discuss)
topic so I've added that list.
Brendan commented to me about tail calls
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-July/006566.html
I created a Mozilla ticket in response and one of my comments there
talks about the
2008/12/4 Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Welcome to the syntax races. lambda takes an early lead, but drops back
because of too much weight. For a while, it's neck and neck between || and
^, with \ following closely and fn, , and other trailing. Many old
timers (including your commentator)
2008/11/29 Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At the TC39 meeting two weeks ago in Kona, we had a brief bikeshedding
discussion about lambda syntax and why it matters.
Who would have thought a discussion about lambda syntax in JavaScript
would go over 120 posts while a simultaneous thread about
2008/12/3 Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If I understand the proposals correctly, then of the following e4x:
Why do you mention e4x? I'm not familiar with it but thought it only
adds XML literals to the language.
Peter
var doc = {{|a,b,c|...}(d,e,f)}
var doc = {^(a,b,c){...}(d,e,f)}
var
Summary of what I've read:
The syntax \(){} has a named lambda problem if the lambda name starts
with a 'u'. Depending on whitespace between the backslash and the
identifier seems like it will cause bugs
\u03c0(){}
\ u03c0(){}
The syntax ^(){} has a semicolon insertion ambiguity. What does
2008/12/3 Yuh-Ruey Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The control abstractions just don't look right, regardless of which lambda
syntax we choose. I'd rather wait for a more powerful macro system, instead
of choosing the syntax based off how it would look in control abstractions.
I agree completely.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eric Suen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it doesn't contain a lambda expression, just like:
a = x
/x/i
is not same as:
a = x;
/x/i
they both right but has different meaning...
Is adding more confusion like this in the language desirable?
Peter
2008/12/2 Jeff Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Since the goal seems to be allowing control structures like Smalltalk
(yay!), how about specifying that one lambda that follows a function
invocation is passed as the final argument to the invocation.
Brendan seemed to reject the idea that this could
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Jon Zeppieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#{ ... } is an object initializer where all of the initialized
properties are non-configurable.
The use of '#' makes me think of reader macros. I like the idea of
reader macros for ES. (I don't know if '#' can be used
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Yuh-Ruey Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As a side note, sometimes I wonder if all this talk about sugar is
moot, because I suspect more and more languages will start compiling
down to ES.)
I keep a list of all the X-ES3 compilers I encounter in the middle of
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Neil Mix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How's this for a strawman: the choice is to follow either Objective-C or
Smalltalk.
Or Scheme which, after all, was the first Lisp with lexical scoping
and first-class lambdas.
Peter
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Chris Pine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
// Instead of lambda (a, b, c) { ... }, why not:
{ |a, b, c| ... } ?
Looks like Ruby to me, so you know I love it. :)
Nice lambda syntax really matters. If that tool is too heavy, I only use it
half
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:31 AM, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-11-30, at 01:30EST, Brendan Eich wrote:
// Instead of lambda (a, b, c) { ... }, why not:
{ |a, b, c| ... } ?
I would rather have a more literate syntax, lest we degenerate to where
practically any comic book
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Take an ES program and replace all if-else with ?: and then most
functions with {||} and it starts to look quite cryptic.
But functions remain. I doubt lambdas in any
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JavaScript already has a concise ASCII vomit syntax for constructing arrays
and objects.
I didn't mean to imply that JavaScript currently deserves the ASCII
vomit label. I also didn't mean to imply the {||} was so bad
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You two have trac accounts at http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ -
Thanks. Hopefully non-committee members can be of some assistance.
Peter
___
Es-discuss mailing list
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Crockford
...
because you can think of the \ as being an abbreviation of function.
\ name(a,b,c) {}
Just
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
