Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
4) The declaration instantiation rules relating to pre-existing bindings
only consider own properties of the global object. Inherited
properties of the
global object have no effect upon the processing of function and
Jonas Sicking wrote:
One potential solution that I think we should keep in mind is to
declare that WebIDL properties*on global objects* doesn't go on the
prototype chain, but rather on the global objects themselves. That
seems like it'll reduce a lot of the foot guns since they will behave
much
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
One potential solution that I think we should keep in mind is to
declare that WebIDL properties*on global objects* doesn't go on the
prototype chain, but rather on the global objects themselves.
Hi,
It's been a couple of days that this thread has had no update and
specifically no answer to Mark Miller's question Other than the
additional complexity, which is a significant argument against, what
other arguments are there against enabling a proxy to drop its target?
So I guess we can
Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
One potential solution that I think we should keep in mind is to
declare that WebIDL properties*on global objects* doesn't go on the
prototype chain, but rather on the global
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Webkit also puts attributes on objects for non-globals, but I'm not
promoting that behavior. Nor do I know of any benefits regarding web
compatibility that comes with that behavior.
Ok, that's what I was getting at. It
On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I don't think there is anything special about the global named undefined.
As long as it is a own property of the global object (which is is spec'ed
to be) 'var undefined' is fine because redundant var
On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
4) The declaration instantiation rules relating to pre-existing bindings
only consider own properties of the global object. Inherited properties
of the
global
On Wed Jul 4 08:01:43 PDT 2012 Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
wrote:
If only JS had pattern matching!
[...]
On Mon Jul 9 09:19:54 PDT 2012 Russell Leggett russell.leggett at gmail.com
wrote:
I know that full blown patterns are out of scope (though I'm hoping maybe
this discussion might
You made a good point, one I thought we had touched on at the last TC39
meeting, but apparently not.
Tom is on vacation till 17 August, so expect to hear back from him after.
/be
David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
It's been a couple of days that this thread has had no update and
specifically no
Are we talking just about attributes here, and not operations? So
Window.prototype.open would still exist and there'd be no own open
property on window?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Jonas Sicking:
Webkit also puts attributes on objects for non-globals, but I'm not
promoting that behavior. Nor do I know of any benefits regarding web
compatibility that comes with that behavior.
Brendan Eich:
Ok, that's what I was getting at. It may be that this is just historical
As bz and others point out, the object detection w/ var pattern can
arise for operations, e.g. for requestAnimationFrame, using the same
var requestAnimationFrame = window.mozRequestAnimationFrame || ... ||
window.requestAnimationFrame;
pattern. So WebIDL operations (JS methods) on the
On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
Webkit also puts attributes on objects for non-globals, but I'm not
promoting that behavior. Nor do I know of any benefits regarding web
compatibility that comes with that behavior.
Brendan Eich:
Ok, that's what I was
Brendan Eich:
As bz and others point out, the object detection w/ var pattern can
arise for operations, e.g. for requestAnimationFrame, using the same
var requestAnimationFrame = window.mozRequestAnimationFrame || ... ||
window.requestAnimationFrame;
pattern. So WebIDL operations (JS
On Aug 11, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
In this case, firing the setter is perhaps what the programmer wanted,
even if it is a terrible way to accomplish that end.
It's not that bad if you start from the
Kyle Huey:
Can we leave EventTarget's methods on the proto chain and only move the
ones on the Window interface itself? Unlike Window, EventTarget isn't
changing very much.
We could. You're right it's not changing much, but I wouldn't want to
box ourselves in to not being able to extend it
On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Brendan Eich:
As bz and others point out, the object detection w/ var pattern can
arise for operations, e.g. for requestAnimationFrame, using the same
var requestAnimationFrame = window.mozRequestAnimationFrame || ... ||
Cameron McCormack wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
Webkit also puts attributes on objects for non-globals, but I'm not
promoting that behavior. Nor do I know of any benefits regarding web
compatibility that comes with that behavior.
Brendan Eich:
Ok, that's what I was getting at. It may be that this is
Just to clarify:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Agreed. Jonas and I are talking about an exception for the global
object. It's the one on the scope chain. Well, other DOM objects are
on scope chains of attribute-expressed event handlers. But such event
handlers do not have any problem with var aliasing
Cameron McCormack wrote:
Brendan Eich:
As bz and others point out, the object detection w/ var pattern can
arise for operations, e.g. for requestAnimationFrame, using the same
var requestAnimationFrame = window.mozRequestAnimationFrame || ... ||
window.requestAnimationFrame;
pattern. So
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
1. If we don't do that auto-forwarding, does Window.prototype still
need to exist? What should window.__proto__ be?
Requirements on the global object are specified here:
Brendan Eich:
As noted, they started out that way 17 years ago. I think WebIDL and
interface-based method definition made onload, e.g., predefined on
window objects, or more recently on Window.prototype. Was this useful?
Was it intended specifically (for window, not just intended generally
due
Just to note, since it's tangentially related to the topic at hand, that
WebKit (Chrome's WebKit?) currently doesn't handle Proxy functions as event
targets (in any form) as noted in this bug report:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=140160. One issue this
illustrates with this
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Are we talking just about attributes here, and not operations? So
Window.prototype.open would still exist and there'd be no own open
property on window?
I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm only talking about
25 matches
Mail list logo
