Le 29/05/2012 21:18, John J Barton a écrit :
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
This is one of those cases where a small delta creates a very large
negative effect.
Evidence?
If you look back on this thread you will see an example
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:45 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/05/2012 21:18, John J Barton a écrit :
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org
wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
This is one of those cases where a small delta creates a very large
negative
I would say this is one of the places that Node shines, due to providing
very easy to use access to the C++ API of V8 directly as JS modules.
Straight copying and pasting from v8.h to a module that directly exposes
the functions to JS can provide access to most of the tools one would want
from JS
John J Barton wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 28, 2012, at 10:03 PM, John J Barton wrote:
So let's rewind to my original question. If the discussion about SES
is leading us toward more things like freeze(), let's do a better job
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 28, 2012, at 10:03 PM, John J Barton wrote:
So let's rewind to my original question. If the discussion
I just wanted to add more weight to the fact that frozen objects aren't
really the only objects you can't write to; it's the same with primitives
(string, number, etc) as well, and all of them fail silently, it's very JSy
to fail silently on write:
var a = 1;
a.x = 2;
console.log(a.x); //
Jussi Kalliokoski wrote:
I just wanted to add more weight to the fact that frozen objects
aren't really the only objects you can't write to; it's the same with
primitives (string, number, etc) as well, and all of them fail
silently, it's very JSy to fail silently on write:
var a = 1;
a.x =
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
1) The advertised advantages of use strict
(https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Strict_mode) seem very
minor to me. I've never had any of the problems it solves and -- until
recently -- I've never
John Tamplin wrote:
2) I had legacy code using with.
You probably want to rewrite such code even if you aren't using SES --
check out the performance implications.
And JSLint won't let you use 'with', not even with options (IIRC).
John, do you really use JSLint *and* 'with'? Paging
FWIW I don't think it's even possible to use JSLint and 'with'. The parser just
quits as if it was a syntax error.
Anton
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
John Tamplin wrote:
2) I had legacy code using with.
You probably want to rewrite such code even if
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
This is one of those cases where a small delta creates a very large
negative effect.
Evidence?
If you look back on this thread you will see an example extracted from
the case that caused me pain.
Re: strict mode not throwing in this case, yeah, I'm aware, I was just
showing how it is not un-JSy for defining properties to fail.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.comwrote:
On 29 May 2012 19:26, Jussi Kalliokoski jussi.kallioko...@gmail.comwrote:
I just
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Anton Kovalyov m...@kovalyov.net wrote:
FWIW I don't think it's even possible to use JSLint and 'with'. The parser
just quits as if it was a syntax error.
Yes this is correct.
Anton
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
John Tamplin
John J Barton wrote:
Anytime you have to debug library code it's a big negative effect.
I agree in general. I also see most developers have to do this, some of
the time. Modularity is never done enough in practice to save us from
this, in JS, C/C++, other languages.
Is there a way to debug
If you look back on this thread you will see an example extracted from
the case that caused me pain. In the real life case I was using Kris
Kowal's Q_COMM library, which builds on Q and is quite sophisticated
code.
I added a function to a Q_COMM object. Later when I called the
function I got an
Le 28/05/2012 01:37, John J Barton a écrit :
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
in adding a Reflect.setPrototype at this point, is there?
There is, just as
On 28 May 2012 06:37, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
A library writer creates an object in one scope and all of their tests
succeed. I use it another scope and my code fails. We are both using
legal statements. How can this not be a global effect?
You're both using legal
On May 28, 2012 2:53 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 06:37, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
A library writer creates an object in one scope and all of their tests
succeed. I use it another scope and my code fails. We are both using
legal
On 28 May 2012 17:34, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On May 28, 2012 2:53 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 06:37, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
A library writer creates an object in one scope and all of their tests
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On May 28, 2012 2:53 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 06:37, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
A library writer creates an object in one scope and all of
On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps this discussion would be aided by a more concrete example.
Doh! Excellent idea. John, if you'd like...? (Otherwise I can do one.)
-- T.J.
___
es-discuss mailing list
David Bruant wrote:
Le 28/05/2012 01:37, John J Barton a écrit :
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no
harm
in adding a Reflect.setPrototype at this point, is there?
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps this discussion would be aided by a more concrete example.
Doh! Excellent idea. John, if you'd like...? (Otherwise I can do one.)
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
function app() {
var r = makeExample();
r.discover = function() {
console.log(I want to call this function);
return 1;
};
r.discover();
}
The result is an error message at the
Uncaught
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com
wrote:
On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps this discussion would be aided by a more
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:33 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
function app() {
var r = makeExample();
r.discover = function() {
console.log(I want to call this function);
return 1;
};
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
The only question is whether you get
an exception when you create discover() or when you call it. Your code
can
choose or not to treat adding properties to frozen objects as a fatal
error
or not, but
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com
wrote:
On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
The only question is whether you get
an exception when you create discover() or when you call it. Your code
can
choose or not to treat
No. I am suggesting that Object.freeze() should not have been added to
the language unless an error was thrown when the object is modified,
full stop. Having a feature like Object.freeze() that does not give an
error when you modify the object is unreasonable. I'm completely
baffled that
On May 28, 2012, at 10:03 PM, John J Barton wrote:
So let's rewind to my original question. If the discussion about SES
is leading us toward more things like freeze(), let's do a better job
this time.
John, could you xplain what you would have done differently with freeze().
It's
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
in adding a Reflect.setPrototype at this point, is there?
There is, just as there's a cost to Object.setPrototypeOf (the
John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
in adding a Reflect.setPrototype at this point, is there?
There is, just as there's a cost to
__proto__ has no effect on 1JS. It introduces no new syntax and
is partially polyfillable. Poorly and incompletely, but is doable to an
extent and definitely isn't backward hostile in the way that pragmas and
new syntax are.
___
es-discuss mailing list
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
in adding a
On May 27, 2012, at 5:13 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
The reason I asked is that use strict seems to be a subset but acts
like another version in some cases. In particular, if a library uses
obj.freeze() and the caller modifies the object by adding a property,
the caller gets no error
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 27, 2012, at 5:13 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
The reason I asked is that use strict seems to be a subset but acts
like another version in some cases. In particular, if a library uses
obj.freeze() and the
On May 27, 2012, at 6:42 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 27, 2012, at 5:13 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
The reason I asked is that use strict seems to be a subset but acts
like another version in some
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
...
First rule of strict mode: use strict only affects code that is lexically
within the scope of the directive. It has no global effect.
My example contradicts this claim.
No, read the spec. You seem to be
Le 24/05/2012 20:10, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
Thanks for the notes and complements :-)
Le 24/05/2012 04:43, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Rick Waldron wrote:
MM:
- From a security perspective, I'd like to move __proto__ out of
annex B and into normative body
BE:
- If MS puts
Hi,
If __proto__ is getting standardized, I propose we adapt proxies to be able
to trap getPrototypeOf.
Why?
- with __proto__, stable prototypes are no longer an invariant. It's
awkward to make proxies go out of their way to maintain it still.
- it's much more consistent with all the other
Le 26/05/2012 13:53, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
Hi,
If __proto__ is getting standardized, I propose we adapt proxies to be
able to trap getPrototypeOf.
Why?
- with __proto__, stable prototypes are no longer an invariant. It's
awkward to make proxies go out of their way to maintain it still.
Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
If __proto__ is getting standardized, I propose we adapt proxies to be
able to trap getPrototypeOf.
Why?
- with __proto__, stable prototypes are no longer an invariant. It's
awkward to make proxies go out of their way to maintain it still.
- it's much more consistent
On May 26, 2012, at 2:37 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 24/05/2012 20:10, Brendan Eich a écrit :
...
Not just array -- DOM too.
DOM is a very interesting case, because the proto operator was not an option
for them since most of them are created by method calls (not even
constructors) and
Excellent! It's actually kind of awkward already if you don't create a
pseudo-trap for '__proto__' since treating the property like normal ones
leads to incorrect results for various operations like defineProperty, and
it doesn't follow normal rules for showing up in property names listing.
It's
Rick Waldron wrote:
super
LH:
- This may be too confusing for the common user
AWB:
- Asserts that super is defined correctly for classes
(explanation)
Should super be allowed in all function forms or restricted to classes?
Resolution: Defer super outside of classes
Any chance to get this
Thanks for the notes and complements :-)
Le 24/05/2012 04:43, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Rick Waldron wrote:
Triangle
Is capable of giving up private names
If people have __proto__ they will not use |.
I don't know who are people but I'm not one of them. | offered some
nice sugar with regard to
David Bruant wrote:
Thanks for the notes and complements :-)
Le 24/05/2012 04:43, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Rick Waldron wrote:
Triangle
Is capable of giving up private names
If people have __proto__ they will not use |.
I don't know who are people but I'm not one of them. | offered some
nice
# Override Mistake (Allen Wirfs-Brock, Mark Miller)
AWB:
- The correct people are not here for this discussion, defer to next meeting
# 4.14, Unicode (Norbert Lindenderg)
NL:
- Regular expressions
- Certain unclear, discuss with Unicode Consortium
see:
Rick, thanks for taking these. I'll try to add a bit of explanation
where it looks like you had to be there ;-).
/be
Rick Waldron wrote:
# 4.10 Object.observe (Rafeal Weinstein)
Rafeal Weinstein:
- Introduction to proposal
See: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:observe
MM:
-
Thanks for filling in those blanks
-Rick
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Rick, thanks for taking these. I'll try to add a bit of explanation
where it looks like you had to be there ;-).
/be
Rick Waldron wrote:
# 4.10 Object.observe (Rafeal Weinstein)
A few additional notes on the items related to internationalization.
Norbert
On May 23, 2012, at 17:58 , Rick Waldron wrote:
# 4.14, Unicode (Norbert Lindenderg)
NL:
- Regular expressions
- Certain unclear, discuss with Unicode Consortium
see:
52 matches
Mail list logo
