Mike Samuel wrote:
2009/2/16 David-Sarah Hopwood david.hopw...@industrial-designers.co.uk
Suppose that S is a Unicode string in which each character matches
ValidChar below, not containing the subsequences !, / or ]], and
not containing ( followed by a character not matching AmpFollower).
S
Michael Haufe wrote:
var Point:object = {
color:string
x:double = 20,
y:double = 50,
z:double = 3
}
-
Sorry, typo correction:
var Point:object = {
color:string = red,
x:double =
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
':' (not '=') is used to separate a property name from its value, so it
can't also be used for type annotations.
Except in the case of JavaScript's non-standard Sharp Variables (https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Sharp_variables_in_JavaScript), which is
what sparked
Michael Haufe wrote:
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
':' (not '=') is used to separate a property name from its value, so it
can't also be used for type annotations.
Except in the case of JavaScript's non-standard Sharp Variables
On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Michael Haufe wrote:
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
':' (not '=') is used to separate a property name from its value,
so it
can't also be used for type annotations.
Except in the case of JavaScript's non-standard Sharp Variables
Right now ES3 assumes that there is a single global object, which is used
at the top of the scope chain and that is returned for this in the
global scope.
It is possible to show that this is now what some browsers do:
var x = 1;
function f() { return x; }
var global = this;
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
For HTML5, this behaviour has been defined in more detail. The global
object is a Window object. This object is per-Document. The object
returned by the window attribute on that global object is actually a
WindowProxy object,
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get different
results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up the example code).
For HTML5, this behaviour has been defined in more detail. The global
object is a
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I don't understand. If the object you're calling Window is inaccessible
from ES code, and if the object you're calling WindowProxy forwards
everything to your Window, why not just relabel Window -
InternalWindow, WindowProxy - Window?
I don't
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get
different results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up the
example code).
For HTML5, this behaviour has
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get
different
results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The deeper problem here is that ES specs to date -- including the
draft ES3.1 spec -- have not yet admitted the existence of multiple
global objects. We
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Right now ES3 assumes that there is a single global object, which is
used
at the top of the scope chain and that is returned for this in the
global scope.
It is possible to show that this is now what some browsers do:
var x = 1;
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Michael Haufe wrote:
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
':' (not '=') is used to separate a property name from its value,
so it
can't also be used for type annotations.
Except in the case of JavaScript's non-standard Sharp Variables
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Here are some demos. 001 is a control test. If it says false, you have a
violation of ES, and are likely incompatible with legacy content. If it
says true, then test 002. If 002 says false, then ES is being violated
in some
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the behavior
that the majority of browser vendors have asked me to codify.
Majority, huh? Which vendors? How does the behavior they ask for correlate
with what their
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the
behavior that the majority of browser vendors have asked me to codify.
Majority, huh? Which vendors? How does the
On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:03 PM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Garrett Smith
dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
That document is not completely readable (at least in Firefox).
I see the first heading: roduction. All subsequent headings
appear truncted.
Rats.
Ok, so
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Opera, Apple, and Mozilla. The HTML5 spec originally specced what IE does,
namely throw an exception when running code whose global object doesn't
match the current Window object, but Opera, Apple, and Mozilla rejected
this on
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Now that I think I understand current and how weak the legacy
constraints are, why not simply spec that your WindowProxy is the
object to treated as the ECMAScript global object? The consequence
would be that both f() and g() in your original
Perhaps this would be a good initial W3C HTML WG/ECMA TC-39 joint work item if
we can expeditiously get past the bureaucratic hurdles. The fact that there
isn't an existing consensus behavior among the major browsers would seem to
present an opportunity to step back a bit and take a new look
+1
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
Perhaps this would be a good initial W3C HTML WG/ECMA TC-39 joint work
item if we can expeditiously get past the bureaucratic hurdles. The fact
that there isn't an existing consensus behavior among
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Now that I think I understand current and how weak the legacy
constraints are, why not simply spec that your WindowProxy is the object to
treated as the ECMAScript global
On Feb 17, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Now that I think I understand current and how weak the legacy
constraints are, why not simply spec that your WindowProxy
You misunderstood me a bit, but no matter. Now that I better understand the
constraints -- thanks! -- what I was trying to say is irrelevant. What I
mess. I am at a loss to find anything sensible to recommend.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 17,
25 matches
Mail list logo
