On Apr 2, 2012, at 5:00 PM, John J Barton wrote:
Allen's original post on this thread offered two choices:
1) extended object literals, (good building blocks).
2) both, (because class gives 80% and thus they complement).
Erik and Tab are arguing for
3) Min-max classes (we need 80%,
Le 02/04/2012 17:59, Irakli Gozalishvili a écrit :
Hi David,
Your protected work reminds me a lot of what we did with `namespcase`
module in jetpack:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/sdk/latest/packages/api-utils/namespace.html
Which I also blogged about some time ago:
I agree that leading |this| could be important for dynamic
non-method use-cases, but those are relatively rare (let's
not discount JQuery, but again, it could use long functions
and survive). We could put leading-this-parameterization
on the agenda for May, but we'll have to be careful not
Le 01/04/2012 13:38, Wes Garland a écrit :
In a similar vein, I would personally like to have
zero-cost-when-not-debugging assert() statements, and am hopeful that
statically-linked modules might lead the way.
It seems to me that what you're asking for is macros, isn't it?
I read hints here
Libraries will need to work in old world browsers for a few years.
Possible solutions:
a) Ask libraries to provide a lib.es-next.js version of themselves in
addition to the old world version, so that compile time linking with
new module/import syntax can be used.
b) Have a way for the library
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:49 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/04/2012 17:59, Irakli Gozalishvili a écrit :
I remember that one of your complaints about namespaces was that inheritance
was not supported. Do you think there is a workable middleground between
namespaces and what
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 01/04/2012 13:38, Wes Garland a écrit :
In a similar vein, I would personally like to have
zero-cost-when-not-debugging assert() statements, and am hopeful that
statically-linked modules might lead the way.
It seems
Le 03/04/2012 17:12, John J Barton a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
mailto:bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 01/04/2012 13:38, Wes Garland a écrit :
In a similar vein, I would personally like to have
zero-cost-when-not-debugging assert()
Le 03/04/2012 17:00, Kris Kowal a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:49 AM, David Bruantbruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/04/2012 17:59, Irakli Gozalishvili a écrit :
I remember that one of your complaints about namespaces was that inheritance
was not supported. Do you think there is a workable
On Tuesday, 2012-04-03 at 01:49 , David Bruant wrote:
Le 02/04/2012 17:59, Irakli Gozalishvili a écrit :
Hi David,
Your protected work reminds me a lot of what we did with `namespcase`
module in jetpack:
Ah looks like Kris already pointed that out
Regards
--
Irakli Gozalishvili
Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/
On Tuesday, 2012-04-03 at 08:00 , Kris Kowal wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:49 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
(mailto:bruan...@gmail.com) wrote:
Le 02/04/2012 17:59, Irakli
On Apr 3, 2012, at 2:01 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
I agree that leading |this| could be important for dynamic non-method
use-cases, but those are relatively rare (let's not discount JQuery, but
again, it could use long functions and survive). We could put
leading-this-parameterization on
Second...
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
foo(a, b, ...rest)
vs
foo(a, b, rest...)
Which is clearer?
ES6 has currently agreed on the first. English and Scheme agree on the
second.
This question applies to both
Call me crazy, but I’d use postfix for a declaration of a rest parameter and
prefix for spreading. To me, prefix feels like it does something, while postfix
has more of a declarative feel.
function foo(a, rest...) {
bar(...rest);
}
Whatever we choose, people will get used to it. So I don’t
I agree that this is really elegant. I have almost the exact same construct
in a language I'm designing. I don't know if it has a place in JS, but you
have my approval. :)
- Russ
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Please excuse me if this will
Le 03/04/2012 22:00, Irakli Gozalishvili a écrit :
Here is more or less what I have in mind: https://gist.github.com/2295048
// class
var Point = {
(x, y) {
this.getX = { () { return x; } }
this.getY = { () { return x; } }
}
toString() {
return '' + this.getX() + ',' +
Second...
In fact, I think I've even written a few code examples accidentally using
that form because it was just more natural.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
foo(a, b, ...rest)
vs
foo(a, b, rest...)
Which is clearer?
ES6 has currently
FWIW, Python and Ruby uses prefix (the * operator). Java and C++11
uses prefix ... (actually suffix on the type).
My vote is for prefix.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 14:08, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
Second...
In fact, I think I've even written a few code examples
On Apr 3, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
foo(a, b, ...rest)
vs
foo(a, b, rest...)
Which is clearer?
ES6 has currently agreed on the first. English and Scheme agree on the second.
The second, of course. As in C: the ellipsis always ends the parameters list.
--
I find the prefix more readable, in both situations.
I read from left to right, and it is clearer when the most semantically
important symbol comes as early as possible in that left to right progression.
Allen
On Apr 3, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
FWIW, Python and Ruby uses
On Tuesday, 2012-04-03 at 14:07 , David Bruant wrote:
Le 03/04/2012 22:00, Irakli Gozalishvili a écrit :
Here is more or less what I have in mind: https://gist.github.com/2295048
// class
var Point = {
(x, y) {
this.getX = { () { return x; } }
this.getY = { () {
On Tuesday, 2012-04-03 at 13:47 , Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I think you should make the distinction between [[Call]] and [[Construct]].
You can do it via (this insntanceof ..) already and dispatch to call /
construct if you want.
But both would be great to have for objects. It’s
Also I just realized that I have not mentioned it but I meant that new Point(0,
0) would do following:
var point = Object.create(Point);
var value = Function.apply.call(point, arguments);
return typeof(value) === 'undefined' ? point : value;
Regards
--
Irakli Gozalishvili
Web:
Second feels more intuitive to me
Regards
--
Irakli Gozalishvili
Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/
On Tuesday, 2012-04-03 at 13:16 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
foo(a, b, ...rest)
vs
foo(a, b, rest...)
Which is clearer?
ES6 has currently agreed on the first. English and Scheme
24 matches
Mail list logo
