typo in my line too
add(key) { const map = private(this).map; return !map.has(key)
!map.set(key, true); }
...
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
there is a typo in the Set delete definition, return
private(this).delete(key) should be
Map and Set do not use an index to be accessed then the iterator send the
index of the key/value as last argument ... I would say either this index
is not sent at all or, since present, should be specified somehow in the
spec.
talking about this
Map#iterate(callback:Function, context:void*):void
thinking about the add behavior, where no duplicated values will be added,
this argument may cause some logic headache anyway
Set([1, 2, 1]) what should happen ?
Also I would probably never use typed arrays to Set procedure ... that
sounds against performances
About new syntax, generators are
Le 14/02/2012 07:22, Erik Arvidsson a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 21:25, Jason Orendorff
jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless TC39 specifies otherwise, the enumeration order of Map and Set
will be arbitrary, it will certainly be inconsistent across browsers,
and it will most likely even
On 14 February 2012 09:47, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, what if Firefox and Chrome disagree, but iPhone safari and
Android Webkit agree?
Also, some products (Node.js (V8), MongoDB (SpiderMonkey), etc.) rely only
on one JS engine, so JS code written for these could rely
Le 14/02/2012 11:23, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 14 February 2012 09:47, David Bruantbruan...@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, what if Firefox and Chrome disagree, but iPhone safari and
Android Webkit agree?
Also, some products (Node.js (V8), MongoDB (SpiderMonkey), etc.) rely only
on one JS
On 14 February 2012 12:02, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 14/02/2012 11:23, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
To be sure, this is assuming that iteration order is fixed for a given
implementation. If order is not specified, then I don't see why that
should be required either.
It is not
There's both room and need for a built-in assert() IMHO -- I would like one
which magically compiles to nothing in production code.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:45 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 14 February 2012 12:02, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 14/02/2012 11:23, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
And I see potential reasons why order might differ for separate
iterations over the same collection.
I'm interested in
I just happened to see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2012JanMar/0157.html
which shows that other web standards efforts continue to struggle to
identify and quash other sources of non-determinism in web standards. If
unspecified iteration order is so good, wouldn't the
On 14 February 2012 18:15, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:45 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
Dynamic changes of representation, for example. V8 does things like
that all the time. And it currently goes to some length to make for-in
deterministic.
Good hash
On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 14 February 2012 18:15, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:45 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
Dynamic changes of representation, for example. V8 does things like
that all the time. And it currently goes to
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, this is assuming that iteration order is fixed for a given
implementation. If order is not specified, then I don't see why that
should be required either.
It is not required, but it's what experience tells us
-
~Chris
cmar...@apple.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:51 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
I speak for myself and my colleagues when I say that we've had our fill
of including scripts _just_ for the sake of having a common testing
interface.
A reasonable
On Feb 12, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Andrew Paprocki wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
It's well-specified by 15.9.3.1 etc.
I was reading http://es5.github.com/x15.9.html and I see the spec for
allowing NaN as the this time value.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:51 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
I speak for myself and my colleagues when I say that we've had our fill
of including
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:50 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:51 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Feb 12, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
If the Date.prototype continues to be a valid Date object, which would be
unfortunate, it should at least be a valid Date object representing an
invalid unsettable date. I believe this is already what IE10 does.
The invalidity isn't
Le 14/02/2012 07:31, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
[+tjclose]
There are many benefits to determinism. E started with
non-deterministic iteration order, which opens a covert channel
hazard. I initially changed to deterministic order merely to plug this
leak. Having done so, I found it had many
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
thinking about the add behavior, where no duplicated values will be added,
this argument may cause some logic headache anyway
Set([1, 2, 1]) what should happen ?
I think that should be a set with one
Le 14/02/2012 19:28, Jason Orendorff a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
To be sure, this is assuming that iteration order is fixed for a given
implementation. If order is not specified, then I don't see why that
should be required either.
It is
if you accept a single argument, of course, but what if you Set(..[1, 2,
1]) then ?
magic add through Set constructor does not sound good to me
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
if you accept a single argument, of course, but what if you Set(..[1, 2,
1]) then ?
`Set(1, 2, 1)` then? Are you suggesting this should throw? So you'd need to
dedupe your arguments before you construct a
nope, Set does not even accept arguments as it is now ... does it ?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
if you accept a single argument, of course, but what if you
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
See the thread containing Dean Landolt's dissent on 'length' being the best
name:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-November/018571.html
The January 19 2012 meeting notes recorded here:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
See the thread containing Dean Landolt's dissent on 'length' being the
best
name:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
True. Assuming that the spread operator works on any iterable,
Not as currently specified. It does the same 0 to length generic property
enumeration as is used within the Array extra functions. Changing to using
an iterator probably would
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
See the thread containing Dean Landolt's dissent on 'length' being the
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Feb 12, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
If the Date.prototype continues to be a valid Date object, which would
be unfortunate, it should at least be a valid Date object representing an
invalid
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
named property, you can explain that all the internal property of
Date.prototype is a non-configurable non-writable privately
Should be ...you can explain the internal...
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
nope, Set does not even accept arguments as it is now ... does it ?
Not now. But this thread suggests changing it to do so. I think I agree but
don't yet have a strong opinion about whether Set should have
On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
My current intent is to respecify the Date time value slot as a private named
property rather than as an internal property. This will enable freezing of
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
IME they're ducktyped by the presence of forEach (this is far from perfect).
Length has nothing to do with iterability. What about generators?
I don't want to go looking anything up right now, but I have lots of
memories of things looking for the presence of length to
Brendan Eich wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
IME they're ducktyped by the presence of forEach (this is far from
perfect).
Length has nothing to do with iterability. What about generators?
I don't want to go looking anything up right now, but I have lots of
memories of things looking for the
On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to go looking anything up right now, but I have lots of
memories of things looking for the presence of length to denote an
array-like.
In ES5:
Many
Jason Orendorff wrote:
I don't think that has ever happened. Python hash codes differ from
version to version and from OS to OS. Jython has a completely
different hashing function from CPython, even for strings. Keep in
mind that hash tables are one of two core data structures in Python,
so if
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Is this comparable with JS? Interop on the web is a harsh mistress. The
C-Python vs. IronPython vs. PyPy vs. etc. situation is more of a porting
model with one-way forks.
Java seems comparable, in that compiled code is
FWIW: I like that you can expressly opt in to ordered iteration in Java, by
using LinkedHashSet (which is a subclass of HashSet which implements the
interface Set):
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashSet.html
On Feb 15, 2012, at 4:32 , John Tamplin wrote:
On Tue,
+1 on ... (spread) exhausting an iterator to expand the iterated values
into positional parameters or initialisers.
/be
Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
nope, Set does not even
If some piece of code needs to empty a set, it would be good to do
that in a single call
set.empty();
Otherwise we might be left doing the following which could be very inefficient.
set.forEach(function(element) {
set['delete'](element);
});
Peter
Perhaps I am overly fatalistic here, but if we don't specify an iteration order
I think the web will just go and specify it for us, as it has for object
property iteration order. We can bet against history repeating itself if we
wish.
On Feb 14, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Mark
Good idea, but I suggest an unambiguous verb instead of an
adjective-or-verb: clear.
empty is often used for the predicate, in naming conventions that
eschew isEmpty and emptyp patterns.
/be
Peter Michaux wrote:
If some piece of code needs to empty a set, it would be good to do
that in a
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Gavin Barraclough
barraclo...@apple.comwrote:
[...]
Mark,
Do you think we want strict insertion order, including for numeric index
properties? I guess I'm thinking the obvious here (
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:enumeration ), but it
clear() is ok. Also, java.util.Map and java.util.Set use clear() so it
would also be familiar to many people.
Perhaps deleteAll() would be more mnemonic, as its relationship with
delete() would be obvious?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Adam Shannon a...@ashannon.us wrote:
I'd agree with
deleteAll() seems confusing because (even though sets aren't designed
like this) it seems like deleteAll(key) would delete all entries that
are mapped from key.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 00:47, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
clear() is ok. Also, java.util.Map and java.util.Set use
51 matches
Mail list logo
