About 'ƒ': on my keyboard, there's no way to type it. I have to use ALT+its
UTF8 keycode, and it doesn't work in all programs. BTW, since the default
file format on Windows is not UTF8, expect many developers to use ISO-8859-1
for their JS files. Personnaly, I use Notepad++ which allow me to
This seems pretty easy to enforce to me.
function a(x) {
let count = 0;
[
(x+1)^(x-1),
(x*x),
(2*x-1)
];
arr.forEach({|x|
if((x1)==0) count++;
});
return count;
}
-Message d'origine-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Saturday, January 21,
(sorry, last mail was sent by mistake)
This seems pretty easy to enforce to me.
function a(x) {
let count = 0;
let arr = [
(x+1)^(x-1),
(x*x),
(2*x-1)
]
arr.forEach({|x|
if((x1)==0) count++;
});
return count;
}
can be compiled as :
function
François REMY wrote:
About the 'fn' proposal, I'm happy with it. Asking a 'use' statement
just for that feature may prove a little excessive but if it can be
merged with other can-be-breaking syntax reforms ('use es6'), why not.
But, seriously, what really makes it impossible to use # or @?
I think use fn; (real pragma syntax), with the low-precedence
assignment-expression fn (params) assign-expr production, wins. What do
you think?
Having fn would be sweet. For many kinds of pragmas, it would be great if
one could configure these per project (or per directory). Then one could
(sorry, last mail was sent by mistake)
This seems pretty easy to enforce to me.
function a(x) {
let count = 0;
let arr = [
(x+1)^(x-1),
(x*x),
(2*x-1)
];
arr.forEach({|x|
if((x1)==0) count++;
});
return count;
}
can be compiled as :
function
Great stuff. I’m equally intrigued by the `use fn` pragma: It allows one to
selectively break compatibility.
Caveat: This kind of pragma introduces a lot of new complexity.
Pragmas would indeed become less burdensome if one could configure them on a
per-project basis. It corresponds to Eclipse
with postMessage and other standard/secure ways to pass data around the
cross frame problem is slowly disappearing unless it's meant to sandbox the
Array, as example, of that frame.
A classic example is indeed the freedom to extend the way we like a
sandboxed Array which hopefully will never
On Jan 21, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 21 January 2012 01:23, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Temporal dead-zone initialization tracking requires extra state and checking
(except for the common cases within functions where it can be statically
determined that
François REMY mailto:fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr
January 21, 2012 2:14 AM
function a(x) {
let count=0;
let arr = [...];
let $lambda = {
[Call]: {||
...
}
};
arr.forEach($lambda);
$lambda.[Call] = function() { throw new InvalidTargetException(); }
No,
François REMY mailto:fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr
January 21, 2012 1:47 AM
(sorry, last mail was sent by mistake)
You sent your reply twice, to this thread and another. I replied to the
other.
As a plus, it allows a very powerful optimisation (block-lambda
running in the same frame as the
François REMY mailto:fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr
January 21, 2012 1:34 AM
About the 'fn' proposal, I'm happy with it. Asking a 'use' statement
just for that feature may prove a little excessive but if it can be
merged with other can-be-breaking syntax reforms ('use es6')
Please read the notes
Hello,
since @-prefixed syntax to access private-named properties seems to win
in the private grounds (and it is good thing), I'd like kill two birds
with one stone:
- private keyword seemed to lose its role
- to access property via @foo, I must 'let foo = Name.create()' first
So let us
Hi,
This is an attempt to list and discuss how threats of a mutable
__proto__ can be prevented and how it is different in the data and
accessor property cases.
## One frame
Assuming code from 2 parties are running in the same frame (one set of
built-ins)
-
var o =
Hello,
there is possibility to use | with function expressions:
SuperFun | function Fun () { ... }
and it creates parallel constructor and prototype chaining.
Would it be possible to allow:
function SuperFun | Fun () {
...
}
to use | in function _declarations_ as well?
For
This was already proposed. See the whole strawman, but in particular
these sections:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#the_private_declaration
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#private_declaration_scoping
On 21/01/2012, at 05:31, Brendan Eich wrote:
Jorge mailto:jo...@jorgechamorro.com
January 20, 2012 7:15 PM
Sorry, I don't follow, with that you mean something else or the acute
accent ?
Oh, not ' but the diacritical on é, you mean?
Yes, the acute accent. For example. Or something else.
Jorge mailto:jo...@jorgechamorro.com
January 21, 2012 12:14 PM
On 21/01/2012, at 05:31, Brendan Eich wrote:
We are not going to use non-ASCII characters, so you are still barking up the
wrong tree.
Aren't you discussing the possibility of using ƒ or λ for functions in this
same thread ?
-Message d'origine-
From: Brendan Eich
François REMY mailto:fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr
January 21, 2012 1:34 AM
About the 'fn' proposal, I'm happy with it. Asking a 'use' statement
just for that feature may prove a little excessive but if it can be
merged with other can-be-breaking
Brendan Eich wrote:
This was already proposed. See the whole strawman, but in particular
these sections:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#the_private_declaration
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#private_declaration_scoping
François REMY mailto:fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr
January 21, 2012 1:00 PM
-Message d'origine- From: Brendan Eich
François REMY mailto:fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr
January 21, 2012 1:34 AM
About the 'fn' proposal, I'm happy with it. Asking a 'use'
statement just for that feature may prove
Herby Vojčík mailto:he...@mailbox.sk
January 21, 2012 1:33 PM
Brendan Eich wrote:
This was already proposed. See the whole strawman, but in particular
these sections:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#the_private_declaration
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík mailto:he...@mailbox.sk
January 21, 2012 1:33 PM
Brendan Eich wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#private_declarations_exist_in_a_separate_name_space_parallel_to_the_variable_binding_environment
The last really was too much for
Herby Vojčík mailto:he...@mailbox.sk
January 21, 2012 1:56 PM
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík mailto:he...@mailbox.sk
January 21, 2012 1:33 PM
Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík mailto:he...@mailbox.sk
January 21, 2012 1:56 PM
Brendan Eich wrote:
private foo;
@foo = bar; // this-relative private foo
return @foo === other.@foo;
return {@foo: bar};
This helps a lot, but there still _is_ an
identifier foo having that private name in
Brendan Eich mailto:bren...@mozilla.org
January 21, 2012 4:39 PM
Er, const, I hope -- not let. Right?
And _the_real_foo should be expanded:
{
private foo;
...
}
desugars to
{
const foo = Name.create(foo);
...
}
with Name.create imported appropriately.
/be
Correction: it is specified in HTML5 here
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/timers.html#timers
.
Suffice to say that a DOM specification isn't sufficient for something so
central to JavaScript, nor is it the specification currently followed by
browsers anyway.
Absolutely agree. I don't see a place for Node's 1ms resolution in
browsers, which was the impetus for raising the issue. I see a place for
Node (and other non-browser platforms) to implement their own host timers
that provide higher resolution (In fact Node's process.nextTick(callback)
is a good
Sorry to spam this thread but I wanted to get the relevent points in up
front:
'Actually, wait a minute -- I think I disagree with you here. WHATWG
specifies the specific event queue of the browser. Node.js has its own
event queue. Others may as well. The unofficial agreement of JS has always
with postMessage and other standard/secure ways to pass data around the cross
frame problem is slowly disappearing unless it's meant to sandbox the Array,
as example, of that frame.
A classic example is indeed the freedom to extend the way we like a sandboxed
Array which hopefully will
30 matches
Mail list logo
