On 7/29/10 16:55, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Jul 29, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Comprehensions: To be useful, need to have a bunch of basic helpers
such as range(), properties(), values(), etc. with short names that
can be used to construct comprehensions. These will be added to
On 11:59 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I keep seeing code like this, I simply don't see it as viable to have
for (.. in ...) sometimes enumerate property names, and some times
enumerate keys, it seems like it could be both confusing and error
prone. esp. given the simplest example: [x for (value in
On 30.07.2010 23:06, felix wrote:
On 7/29/10 16:55, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Jul 29, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Comprehensions: To be useful, need to have a bunch of basic helpers
such as range(), properties(), values(), etc. with short names that
can be used to construct
On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:06 PM, felix wrote:
actionscript 3 has
for (key in a) {}
for each (val in a) {}
This is from ECMA-357, E4X, and it is in SpiderMonkey and Rhino too -- it's not
original to AS3.
It's also something we agreed (crock too, IIRC) was too vague: each does not
scream
On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Another thing to mention regarding array comprehensions is /pattern matching/
(in less common, but related to JS, case -- /destructing assignment/).
Currently, it's implemented in JS 1.7 in simple for/each-in loops:
for each ({a: x}
On 7/30/10 14:10, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:06 PM, felix wrote:
actionscript 3 has
for (key in a) {}
for each (val in a) {}
This is from ECMA-357, E4X, and it is in SpiderMonkey and Rhino too --
it's not original to AS3.
It's also something we agreed (crock too, IIRC) was
On 7/30/10 14:37, Brendan Eich wrote:
For Harmony, we do not propose to standardize |for each|. Instead, the
iteration and array comprehensions proposals for Harmony (see the wiki) propose
that programmers choose keys, values, items (properties), or other iteration
protocols by saying what
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
For Harmony, we do not propose to standardize |for each|. Instead, the
iteration and array comprehensions proposals for Harmony (see the wiki)
propose that programmers choose keys, values, items (properties), or other
iteration protocols by
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:43 PM, felix wrote:
Of course this does not say what the syntax for a meta-programmable
iteration construct should be, but laziness suggests all is not
precisely on target.
so why not make it for each? for-each iterates over a stream, and in the
case of arrays the
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:47 PM, felix wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:37, Brendan Eich wrote:
For Harmony, we do not propose to standardize |for each|. Instead, the
iteration and array comprehensions proposals for Harmony (see the wiki)
propose that programmers choose keys, values, items (properties), or
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:47 PM, felix wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:37, Brendan Eich wrote:
For Harmony, we do not propose to standardize |for each|. Instead, the
iteration and array comprehensions proposals for Harmony (see the wiki)
propose that
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:43 PM, felix wrote:
Of course this does not say what the syntax for a meta-programmable
iteration construct should be, but laziness suggests all is not
precisely on target.
so why not make it for each? for-each
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
To avoid this confusion you can add new syntax (|for each| or whatever,
doesn't matter). I've argued in recent posts that it is better from a global
and long-term point of view to reform
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
To avoid this confusion you can add new syntax (|for each| or whatever,
doesn't matter). I've argued in recent posts that it is better from a
-- Forwarded message --
From: Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com
To: Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:09:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Re: Day 2 meeting notes
On 11:59 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I keep seeing code like this, I simply don't see it as viable
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
By overloading for(in) we are effectively saying that there will never be a
simple way to iterate arrays by value directly, because no one can even
extend the builtin array type be have a generator for iteration because
doing so would be too
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Faisal Vali wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com
To: Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:09:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Re: Day 2 meeting notes
On 11:59 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I keep
Please remove me from your mailing list thanks.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM, felix feli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:56, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:47 PM, felix wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:37, Brendan Eich wrote:
For Harmony, we do not propose to standardize |for each|. Instead, the
iteration and array comprehensions
On 7/30/10 21:33, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM, felix feli...@gmail.com
mailto:feli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:56, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:47 PM, felix wrote:
On 7/30/10 14:37, Brendan Eich wrote:
For
20 matches
Mail list logo
