On Aug 24, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Let's say you did that -- make a special case for NaN but not for -0.
Let's say you use this Map to build memoize. Now let's say someone
writes a purely functional function F such that F(0) is 3 and F(-0) is
7. Let's say G is memoize(F).
On Aug 24, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Polls are not so good, compared to reasons. Could you give your
rationale
and talk about the trade-offs, in your experience?
You summed it up nicely with the hat trick:
It's a nice hat trick: privacy, higher integrity, and semantic reuse
On Aug 24, 2008, at 9:44 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
I am surprised this is up for debate, I would also think that we
would want
instance-private by default.
We can debate lots of things, some that might actually be in play.
AFAIK this one is not decided in the committee (it's way too early),
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Kris Zyp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Desugared from:
class Point {
private var x = Math.random();
function getX(){
return this.x;
}
...
}
Is there any need for the this.? Some languages allow this.x to
get out from under the shadow of a local
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to what the what the value of 1.0m == 1.00m should be, the amount
of code and the amount of spec writing effort is the same either way.
I can see
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 24, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
If there were an Object.eq method, then 1.1m and 1.10m should be
considered different by such a function.
I don't believe that decimal, by itself, justifies the addition of an
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is gross. I'm in favor of Object.identical and Object.hashcode,
I don't care if Object.eq is named Object.identical. Other than
spelling, does your Object.identical differ from Object.eq? If not,
then I think we're
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:50 AM, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, as a user, I've always assumed:
== : equal [1]
[1, 2] == [1, 2] // yields false
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is gross. I'm in favor of Object.identical and Object.hashcode,
I don't care if Object.eq is named Object.identical. Other than
spelling,
On 25 Aug 2008, at 12:29, Sam Ruby wrote:
the
next-edition-of-ES-that-provides-decimal (my working assumption still
is 3.1 whatever that may be called, others may be understandably
skeptical)
Clearly that version should be called 3.1m!
drj
___
FWIW, ByteArray has been immensely popular (and useful) in ActionScript 3. I
would hope it can make it into both 3.1 and Harmony.
(ByteVector is probably a better name, though, as its behavior is more
Vector-like than Array-like.)
On 8/23/08 6:49 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 12:34 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Kris Zyp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Desugared from:
class Point {
private var x = Math.random();
function getX(){
return this.x;
}
...
}
Is there any need for the this.? Some languages
On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
I am surprised this is up for debate, I would also think that we
would
want
instance-private by default.
We can debate lots of things, some that might actually be in
play. AFAIK
this one is not decided in the committee (it's way too
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 23, 2008, at 10:23 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(function (x, y) {...})(a, b)
would be quite welcome. It is clear people like this pattern and
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
If Decimal is an object type, then typeof 1.0m == object is good
for a couple of reasons:
* Future-proof in case we do add a primitive decimal type, as ES4
proposed -- a peer of double that shares Number.prototype; typeof on
a decimal would
On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
maybe even in ES3.1 (I should get my act together and help spec 'em).
(I will help on identical/hashcode, btw -- think we're agreeing
vehemently ;-).)
Just
not particularly on account of Decimal, even with equated cohort
members. I
On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:50 AM, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, as a user, I've always assumed:
== : equal [1]
[1, 2] == [1, 2] // yields false
This makes me sad, but some day there might be ways to attach
multimethods
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I will help on identical/hashcode, btw -- think we're agreeing vehemently
;-).)
;) !!
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
What is it
On Aug 25, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
To refer to the instance in the sugared language, and there are valid
use-cases for doing so, we should use |this|. There's no point in
introducing a new keyword.
If there is a need to refer to the instance then this does make
sense. What
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is gross. I'm in favor of Object.identical and Object.hashcode,
I don't care if Object.eq is named Object.identical. Other than
spelling,
On Aug 25, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
What is it you and Sam are agreeing about? I lost track.
That if we make cohort members == and ===, telling anyone
I wrote:
Since generators are shallow, it seems clear that there
should be some local cps-style transform of generators into the
remainder of the language. However, it would be a relief to know what
that cps-style transform actually looks like, and what edge cases it
has. Anyone care to post
On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
...we'll have to write something like this?
const
{ DatabaseName,
DisplayCount,
... Ten more ...
} =
Debugging ?
{ DatabaseName: TestDatabase,
DisplayCount: 5,
...
What should compareTotal do when you compare -NaN and NaN?
Waldemar
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Neil Mix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since generators are shallow, it seems clear that there
should be some local cps-style transform of generators into the
remainder of the language. However, it would be a relief to know what
that cps-style transform actually
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
are shallow generators
implementable by a local cps transform?
Yes, the local evaluation (inside the generator function) is the only
place that needs to be CPS'ed to allow yield in any expression or
statement context.
This approach
We're going round in circles on a few issues surrounding Decimal. Some of
these have clear resolutions; others have a little wiggle room. Here's my
summary:
- Should decimal values behave as objects (pure library implementation) or as
primitives?
If they behave as objects, then we'd get
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
We're going round in circles on a few issues surrounding Decimal.
It seems to me people have reached the conclusion you already did on
===. I'm not sure anyone advocated otherwise (I've missed most 3.1
calls lately, so can't be sure).
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Now there is another problem: differentiating between which
variables are local to the constructor function (that is,
transient and garbage collected after the
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
There needs to be a way(s) to distinguish which variables have which
lifetimes and visibilities.
We have ways already: explicit blocks containing let-declared
temporaries; your public to make things visible outside their lexical
scope.
Brendan Eich wrote:
- Should decimal values behave as objects (pure library
implementation) or as primitives?
If they behave as objects, then we'd get into situations such as 3m !=
3m in some cases and 3m == 3m in other cases. Also, -0m != 0m would
be necessary. This is clearly
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
I think the ability to have two modules in one file means modules will
need to name themselves. That is they will need to be declared with a
name like
module foo {
//
Waldemar Horwat wrote:
We're going round in circles on a few issues surrounding Decimal.
Some of these have clear resolutions; others have a little wiggle
room. Here's my summary:
I don't believe that we are going around in circles. I've got a
tangible implementation that is tracking to the
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
are shallow generators
implementable by a local cps transform?
Yes, the local evaluation (inside the generator function) is the only place
that needs to be CPS'ed to
On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Thanks, that helps a lot. But shouldn't that i == n be !(i n)
since it's a transform of the original i n?
Sure -- was going fast (other work competing ;-).
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Dave Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can't
2008/8/25 Kris Zyp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A lot of Ajax widgets, e.g. Dojo, use their own inheritance models, often
based on copying properties (sometimes based on prototypes; in the case of
Dojo's MI, both!). Copying is fine for a zero-inheritance classes-as-sugar
proposal. The prototype stuff, as
On Aug 25, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I've been quiet on these threads for a long time but i just wanted
to emphasize Kris's point. Whatever we decide to desugar the class
syntax into I think it is very important to get this right. We need
to make classes work with existing
Brendan Eich wrote:
Dave, is the violent transform of the for-loop above the kind of
rest-of-the-language transform you were referring to?
Answering for Dave: yes.
Sorry for the delay-- yes, any kind of construct in the language other
than function/method/constructor call would require CPS.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Dave Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'd still rather not try to understand generators
by CPS-transforming the relevant bits of the RI.
A little confused here-- was that an errant not?
No. I meant that, since I understand continuation by CPS-transform, if
On Aug 25, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
How important is it that yield be an expression rather than a
statement? It seems like a sibling of return and throw, so I don't
think anyone coming to them afresh would be surprised if yield were a
statement.
This is and was not a
40 matches
Mail list logo
