On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
Submit patches—libraries intended for use in IE8 should be made to support
that platform, it's that simple.
Submitting patches is irrelevant and impractical here.
Why use es5-shim? Because we want to use some scripts
This is an old thread which I like to mention again. The proposal is change
the method name from Array.of() to Array.fromElements() to make it clear
especially for non-English native programmers.
It seems the thread is totally ignored...
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
Array.of sounds expressive only for native speakers.
English is not my first language and it sounded expressive to me. I've
asked 5 random friends that code and they all said it sounded fine to them.
While
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Dec 18, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Shijun He wrote:
...
2)
In fact such expressive is MEANINGLESS because we will never write `var
a = Array.of(1, 2, 3)` instead of `var a = [1, 2, 3]`
Note that 'of' works
There are some methods using reserved word delete, such as
Map.prototype.delete, Set.prototype.delete... Though it is allowed since
ES5, I think we'd better avoid it because it cause es6 shim solution fail
on legacy browsers such as IE8.
--
hax
___
...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 17/12/2013 10:19, Shijun He a écrit :
There are some methods using reserved word delete, such as
Map.prototype.delete, Set.prototype.delete... Though it is allowed since
ES5, I think we'd better avoid it because it cause es6 shim solution fail
on legacy browsers such as IE8
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
Right, and map[delete](key) works fine. The future of the language
itself should not be impaired by a browser that has an expiration date.
No, it does NOT work. Because you can't ask all module/library authors
write
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Alex Kocharin a...@kocharin.ru wrote:
How can you migrate to ES6 if you didn't even migrate to ES5 first?
Even IE5 (pre-ES3) can use string.prototype.repeat with simple shim.
And with es6 shim, Map/Set SHOULD works on IE5, and all modules depend on
Map/Set
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Concrete example: Even and Odd modules refer to each other, but the import
statements occur after some initialization:
module Odd {
export let odd = function(x) {
return x === 0 ? false :
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski
jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com wrote:
I find this interesting as well, because I've been thinking of creating Yet
Another(TM) module loader, which would be a standalone polyfill for Harmony
modules.
I just wrote one:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:24 PM, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
What does it look like if you want to import more than one variables
from one module?
import {a,b} from oldscript.js#a,b
2012/8/31 Shijun He hax@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess Kevin has some same concerns with me.
The four things point to one question: What should we do with the old
ES3/ES5 libraries after we have module?
(please correct me if you didn't mean that.)
ES3/ES5 libraries might be in
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
As I understand, imports in a/a.js (what in this case also import
another 'a/a.js' which should be resolve to 'a/a/a.js') will also
delegate to myLoader,
Exactly.
so it is obviously wrong if myFetch is invoked
For load('a/a.js') in my.js, myFetch is invoked with:
relURL='a/a.js'
baseURL = System.baseURL = '/path/my.js'
For import x from 'a/a.js', myFetch is also invoked with:
relURL='a/a.js'
baseURL = System.baseURL = '/path/my.js'
typo, both System.baseURL should read as myLoader.baserURL
ES5 strict mode disallow Function declaration in any statements. It's
fine, but Function declaration in top labelled statements seems
harmless, why not relax the rules to allow them so we can use Labeled
Modules Specification ? Though it seems too late to fix.
Code example:
'use strict' // cause
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
And is there any difference if module A is write as:
module A {
var _a = 'a'
export function changeA(v) {
a = v
}
export {a: _a}
}
This should not work. There is no value in scope inside the module 'A'
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
No, Luke just meant that the assignment in changeA should read
_a = v
Oh, my typo!
since that is the local name of the variable. After changing that, the
module is indeed equivalent to the other version.
It seems current loader spec is so simple and I'm full of confusion of
baseURL props.
// lib/a.js
System.baseURL // lib/a.js ??
System.load('b.js', ...) // I suppose this should load lib/b.js, right?
var myLoader = new Loader(System, { baseURL: 'mypath/c.js' , fetch:myFetch })
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
System.baseURL // lib/a.js ??
No, the base url will be an absolute URL, like 'http://example.com/lib/a.js'.
So in /lib/b.js , System.baseURL will return a diff result
http://example.com/lib/b.js; ?
var myLoader =
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
So in /lib/b.js , System.baseURL will return a diff result
http://example.com/lib/b.js; ?
This depends on how you're loading b.js.
Could explain more about that? I suppose b.js is loaded by system loader.
I
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that screenshots of search suggestions for a language feature
that hasn't even been published is valid argument in this discussion.
I'd also argue that these results support the current Array.of
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of its repositioning on the right as a property, I would
intuitively expect new to behave the same way it would as its operator
equivalent (for all constructors, not just Array). By no means do I wish to
I
Example:
== my.js ==
var myLoader = new Loader(System, {fetch: myFetch}
function myFetch(relURL, baseURL, ...) {...}
myLoader.load('a/a.js', ...)
== a/a.js ==
import x from 'a/a.js' // developer means to load a/a/a.js
...
As I understand, imports in a/a.js (what in this case also import
Hi,
I don't think Array.of() is useful, just stick on array literal seems enough:
var a = [1,2,3]
var a1 = [3]
Why we need this:
var a = Array.of(1,2,3)
var a1 = Array.of(3)
Is there any special benefit I missed?
And there is another reason why I don't like Array.of() , myself write
a small
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
var o = (function( construct, ...rest ) {
return new construct( rest );
})( factory [, variable arity args] );
If factory is Array and only one numeric arg is given, inline like this:
var o = (function(
Hi, I'm writing a library for ES5 to add module system like ES6, I
just want to confirm some behaviors of ES6 module system:
module A {
export var a = 'a'
export function changeA(v) {
a = v
}
}
module B {
import * from A
console.log(a) // 'a'
changeA('a1')
console.log(a) //
26 matches
Mail list logo
