Restarting this thread, because it's still an issue a year+ on.
In the Font Loading spec http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-font-loading/,
I have a FontFaceSet interface
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-font-loading/#FontFaceSet-interface,
which is a Set that contains FontFace objects, plus a few other
: Overriding Map/etc with get/set hooks?
Restarting this thread, because it's still an issue a year+ on.
In the Font Loading spec http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-font-loading/,
I have a FontFaceSet interface
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-font-loading/#FontFaceSet-interface,
which is a Set that contains
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
When I last looked at this, it seemed like a perfect use case for
[Traits](http://soft.vub.ac.be/~tvcutsem/traitsjs/tutorial.html). A
Set-like trait would require definitions for add, delete, and
...@wirfs-brock.com
Cc: Brendan Eichmailto:bren...@mozilla.com;
es-discussmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Overriding Map/etc with get/set hooks?
Restarting this thread, because it's still an issue a year+ on.
In the Font Loading spec http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-font-loading/,
I have
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
When I last looked at this, it seemed like a perfect use case for [Traits](
http://soft.vub.ac.be/~tvcutsem/traitsjs/tutorial.html). A Set-like
trait would require definitions for add, delete, and
-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: RE: Overriding Map/etc with get/set hooks?
Sorry for the short reply here, as I'm not at my PC.
Would having an @@isValue (Map) and @@isKey (Set/Map) work?
Set.prototype[@@isValue] = value = true; // default
Built -in Set operations would check values against
On Aug 11, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Restarting this thread, because it's still an issue a year+ on.
In the Font Loading spec http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-font-loading/,
I have a FontFaceSet interface
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-font-loading/#FontFaceSet-interface,
which is a
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Ron Buckton rbuck...@chronicles.org wrote:
What if the default Map prototype had a configurable but non-writable data
property for a @@coerceKey symbol that pointed to a default coercion
function. You could subclass Map and provide your own @@coerceKey
On May 21, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with style
rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in the style
On May 22, 2013, at 5:20 AM, Ron Buckton wrote:
What if the default Map prototype had a configurable but non-writable data
property for a @@coerceKey symbol that pointed to a default coercion
function. You could subclass Map and provide your own @@coerceKey
implementation. Then
2013/5/21 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with style
rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in the style
rule, the proxy is just a façade with a bit of validation/coercion logic).
That's the
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So Tab: why do you want to abuse Map instead of make a custom class?
Restating from my earlier post:
1. when someone asks is this Map-like? in an appropriately idiomatic
JS way, they get a yes
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If TC39 isn't going to allow us to ever use*any* of the built-in
collection classes just because we have type restrictions we need to
enforce, that'll be a pretty raw deal for authors.
Whining about TC39 like this is bad for business. Should I whine about
W3C to even up
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
There aren't many Map methods. Write your own workalikes if you need 'em.
Done.
Really? You're seriously saying that I, and every other spec author,
every time we need to spec something that's just like a built-in
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If TC39 isn't going to allow us to ever use*any* of the built-in
collection classes just because we have type restrictions we need to
enforce, that'll be a pretty raw deal for authors.
Whining
On May 22, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
There aren't many Map methods. Write your own workalikes if you need 'em.
Done.
Really? You're seriously saying that I, and every other spec
On May 22, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If TC39 isn't going to allow us to ever use*any* of the built-in
collection classes just because we have type restrictions
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
NodeList extends Array now but is not literally Array plus hooks. Same for
Map and the quite different thing you're specifying.
NodeList is an interesting case, actually. It's an Array, but with a
type restriction. Live
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [jackalm...@gmail.com]
NodeList is an interesting case, actually. It's an Array, but with a type
restriction.
What do you mean by that? Surely you don't mean can only store nodes:
```
var nodeList = document.querySelectorAll(div);
undefined
nodeList.length
22
Le 22/05/2013 19:02, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
NodeList extends Array now but is not literally Array plus hooks. Same for Map
and the quite different thing you're specifying.
NodeList is an interesting case, actually.
is simply static collection, so immutable:
```
var all = document.querySelectorAll(*);
var length = all.length;
all[length] = 'whatever';
alert(all.length === length);
[].push.call(all, 'whatever');
alert(all.length === length);
```
you can put properties because is extensible but you won't
I believe Tab is asking for something like:
`var MyNodeList = new ArrayType(EntryType, length);`
where `EntryType` is his own type and the result is an array like
collection or map.
At least, for what I understood, looks like he's asking for JS CTypes,
something rumored a while ago but never
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 22/05/2013 19:02, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
NodeList extends Array now but is not literally Array plus hooks. Same
for Map and the quite
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe Tab is asking for something like:
`var MyNodeList = new ArrayType(EntryType, length);`
where `EntryType` is his own type and the result is an array like collection
or map.
At least, for what I
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 21, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with style
you wrote:
What do I need to do to get a Map like that?
I answered but I've mistaken your original question and apologized already.
regards
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
-ride the same number of @@ methods so I don't see a major gain in that
approach.
[[MapData]] is just a list of tuples. All I need for my spec (and for
future
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
All of these are easy to do if this is just a Map (or has Map on its
prototype chain), but with a custom [[MapData]] whose behavior is
defined by my spec.
Would another way to think about this be as a regular
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
All of these are easy to do if this is just a Map (or has Map on its
prototype chain), but with a custom [[MapData]] whose behavior is
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
All of these are easy to do if this is just a Map (or has
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
If we ignore the toString() and other validation, yes. But note that
setting
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
Your example is not a restatement of your question.
Yes, the environment can
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Ok, that's what I thought was going on. We can make some other
function calls which might mutate the Map, just as with any other Map
that we get from someone else. In that case, my response to Anne
stands -- why is
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
Ok, that's what I thought was going on. We can make some other
function calls which might mutate the Map, just as with any other Map
that
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
No, you don't need to do anything differently. Conceptually, there
are three things you need:
1. When the Map is created, before it's handed to the program, some
items are added.
2. Some platform operations also
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
No, you don't need to do anything differently. Conceptually, there
are three things you need:
1. When the Map is created, before it's
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
If the plan is to do that, then you should_not_ use Map. That isn't a Map.
But that doesn't need to be a proxy, either. It's something with a
signature that could be the same as Map's, but with different semantics.
I sense people have trouble drawing the line on
Le 21/05/2013 04:06, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
For the CSS Variables spec I need to define an object with arbitrary
string keys, with the initial set determined by the custom properties
set in the style rule, and on modification I need to coerce the
provided key to a string, and then go mutate
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with
style rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in
the style rule, the proxy is just a façade with a bit of
validation/coercion logic). That's the sort of use case they've been
introduced
Le 21/05/2013 13:19, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with
style rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in
the style rule, the proxy is just a façade with a bit of
validation/coercion logic). That's the
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So Tab: why do you want to abuse Map instead of make a custom class?
As we tried to explain before, the believe is that a lot of Map
generics will work directly on this Map-like object, similar to how we
want Array methods
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Of course, coercing key type makes the API not Map. So if the
bi-directionality is important, this would be a custom Map-like class.
I guess I also do not really get this. Sure JavaScript does not have a
type system
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Of course, coercing key type makes the API not Map. So if the
bi-directionality is important, this would be a custom Map-like class.
I guess I
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So Tab: why do you want to abuse Map instead of make a custom class?
As we tried to explain before, the believe is that a lot of Map
generics will work directly on this Map-like object, similar
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with style
rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in the style
rule, the proxy is just a façade with a bit of
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Of course, coercing key type makes the API not Map. So if the
What if the default Map prototype had a configurable but non-writable data
property for a @@coerceKey symbol that pointed to a default coercion function.
You could subclass Map and provide your own @@coerceKey implementation. Then
Map.prototype.set.call() would be forced to run the custom
Seems like this isn't really a Map? It'd be pretty confusing for something to
pretend to be a Map but act in such coercive and side-effecty ways. Better to
just obey the Map structural type, perhaps, to give people an interface they're
used to while not pretending to be something you're not?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Seems like this isn't really a Map? It'd be pretty confusing for something to
pretend to be a Map but act in such coercive and side-effecty ways. Better to
just obey the Map structural type, perhaps, to give
Oh, I must have misread your original message. I thought it did not allow
storing non-string keys. If it can allow storing any kind of key, like a Map,
and it's just the initial data you're referring to, then maybe it is a Map. As
long as the contract that `map.set(x, y); map.get(x) === y`
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
As long as the contract that `map.set(x, y); map.get(x) === y` works for any
`x` and `y`, then you're probably fine.
I think it would have to subclass those methods by using toString() on
the argument passed.
On May 21, 2013, at 1:23, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@annevk.nlmailto:ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.commailto:dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
As long as the contract that `map.set(x, y); map.get(x) === y` works for any
`x` and
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Oh, I must have misread your original message. I thought it did not allow
storing non-string keys. If it can allow storing any kind of key, like a Map,
and it's just the initial data you're referring to,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Hmm, so that invariant wouldn't hold? I assume `has` would be similarly
broken? Seems… not so Map like, besides perhaps having some operations with
the same name as Map's.
Relevant:
On May 21, 2013, at 1:28, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Domenic Denicola
Isdome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
Oh, I must have misread your original message. I thought it did not allow
storing non-string keys. If it can allow storing any kind
57 matches
Mail list logo
