On Sep 1, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
...
Ambiguity is not a matter of preference. We need to validate the ES6 grammar.
Until then, please put back the NoIn productions. They were not there only
because of the silly and unwanted initialiser option for 'for (var x = y of
z)'.
Allen Wirfs-Brock mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com
September 3, 2013 10:45 AM
Yup, we went off-track on this at the meeting. But Waldemar's point
about arrow functions is still valid. We are going to need to have
ArrowFunctionNoIn to disallow things like:
for (f = x = x in foo;;)
For sure.
On Aug 31, 2013, at 9:21 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen, are you doing this some other way? Static semantics can't do it, we
need parametric productions or else ye olde NoIn splitting.
/be
André Bargull mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu
August 31, 2013 4:21 AM
The NoIn grammar productions
Another item from the day of the July meeting that I happened to miss.
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
However, at the meeting, we did not discussion the fact that in ES3
NoIn was also used in:
IterationStatement : 'for' '(' [ExpressionNoIn] ';' [Expression]
';' [Expression] ')' Statement
The NoIn grammar productions have been removed in rev17. Does this mean
that `for (a in b;;);` is now a valid (C-style) for-loop instead of a
SyntaxError?
Thanks,
André
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Allen, are you doing this some other way? Static semantics can't do it,
we need parametric productions or else ye olde NoIn splitting.
/be
André Bargull mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu
August 31, 2013 4:21 AM
The NoIn grammar productions have been removed in rev17. Does this
mean that `for (a in
6 matches
Mail list logo
