On May 5, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Still does not connote non-existent.
If all these handlers are only invoked in missing property
situations then we can probably get away with an implicitly non-
existent connotation.
The ones that want to be called for existent
On May 4, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brendan Eich [mailto:bren...@mozilla.com]
On May 4, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
In the function defined for the example's invoke item the first
argument to apply probably should be obj
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 Feb 13, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
We should talk about methodMissing for Harmony.
I did try
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-November/008143.html
but nothing seems to have come
I also captured these on the wiki page:
In the function defined for the example's invoke item the first argument to
apply probably should be obj rather than peer.
I would be inclined to specify an additional argument (probably the first) for
each handler function that would be passed the this
Two open issues remain:
On May 4, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
In the function defined for the example's invoke item the first
argument to apply probably should be obj rather than peer.
Possibly, but in the example peer[id] may be a function that insists
on |this| being
-Original Message-
From: Brendan Eich [mailto:bren...@mozilla.com]
On May 4, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
In the function defined for the example's invoke item the first
argument to apply probably should be obj rather than peer.
Possibly, but in the example peer[id] may
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:41 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
If a common language for hand-coders and code-generators is
desirable, isn't it necessary to consider the code-generator part?
Yes.
I didn't agree that such a desert-topping/floor-wax was desirable.
Almost all
I haven't digested the details of this thread. However, I did want to go on
record as saying this is an area of interest to Microsoft and something we
would like to put more effort into (in the TC-39 context) after we wrap-up
ES3.1. Now back to trying to finish editing for the final draft
On Feb 13, 2009, at 7:45 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:41 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
If a common language for hand-coders and code-generators is
desirable, isn't it necessary to consider the code-generator part?
Yes.
I didn't agree that such a
Brendan Eich wrote:
...
JS is used by many more programmers, amateur and pro, than C. It has
to have better human factors than C. That goes against being a good
code generator target language.
I totally agree with the first two sentences. I reserve judgment regarding the
third.
Allen
Can you get off the fence on adding goto? How about call/cc?
For now, I only have problems, not solutions. However, I think it is debatable
whether call/cc is more approachable to beginners (who admittedly don't write
compilers) than goto. Call/cc is probably less of an attractive nuisance
On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Can you get off the fence on adding goto? How about call/cc?
For now, I only have problems, not solutions.
Me too :-).
However, I think it is debatable whether call/cc is more
approachable to beginners (who admittedly don't write
On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
The JVM bytecode is a counter-example and we are not going to
standardize anything like it in the near term (next few years).
I meant by counter-example an example of what not to do. Same goes
for SWF ABC (used by Flash), which Adobe does
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 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, for browsers to implement it and for old
browsers to disappear.
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 Feb 12, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
