On 26 Aug 2013, at 04:08, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 2013, at 23:43 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
I would suggest adding something like `String.isIdentifier` which accepts a
multi-symbol string or an array of code points to the
On Sep 5, 2013, at 1:06 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 26 Aug 2013, at 04:08, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 2013, at 23:43 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
I would suggest adding something like `String.isIdentifier` which
On 25 Aug 2013, at 04:17, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com wrote:
I don't think that's a technical problem. String.isIdentifier{Start,Part}, as
I proposed them, don't deal with actual identifiers in source text; they
check individual identifier characters.
The
On Aug 24, 2013, at 23:43 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
I would suggest adding something like `String.isIdentifier` which accepts a
multi-symbol string or an array of code points to the strawman. Seems useful
to be able to do `String.isIdentifier('foobar')`
What would be the use
On 27 Feb 2012, at 22:58, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Feb 26, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
For example, U+2F800 CJK COMPATIBILITY IDEOGRAPH-2F800 is a supplementary
Unicode character in the [Lo] category, which leads me to believe it should
be allowed in
On 24 Aug 2013, at 11:02, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
Wouldn’t this be confusing, though?
global['\u{2F800}'] = 42; // would work (compatible with ES5 behavior)
global['\uD87E\uDC00'] = 42; // would work, too, since `'\uD87E\uDC00' ==
'\u{2F800}'` (compatible with ES5
On Aug 24, 2013, at 2:02 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2012, at 22:58, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
var \ud87e\udc00 would probably still be illegal because each \u define
a separate character but: var \u{2f800} =42; schould be find as should the
On 24 Aug 2013, at 22:13, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 2013, at 2:02 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2012, at 22:58, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
var \ud87e\udc00 would probably still be illegal because each
On Aug 24, 2013, at 5:42 , Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
To clarify: consider what the Identifier Identification strawman[1] or any
scripts that emulate similar behavior should do if Allen’s suggestion would
be implemented:
String.isIdentifierStart('\uD87E\uDC00'); // should
On Feb 26, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
For example, U+2F800 CJK COMPATIBILITY IDEOGRAPH-2F800 is a supplementary
Unicode character in the [Lo] category, which leads me to believe it should
be allowed in identifier names. After all, the spec says:
UnicodeLetter = any character
For example, U+2F800 CJK COMPATIBILITY IDEOGRAPH-2F800 is a supplementary
Unicode character in the [Lo] category, which leads me to believe it should
be allowed in identifier names. After all, the spec says:
UnicodeLetter = any character in the Unicode categories “Uppercase letter
(Lu)”,
11 matches
Mail list logo
