Hi, I'm writing a library for ES5 to add module system like ES6, I just want
to confirm some behaviors of ES6 module system:
module A {
export var a = 'a'
export function changeA(v) {
a = v
}
}
module B {
import * from A
console.log(a) // 'a'
changeA('a1')
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
And is there any difference if module A is write as:
module A {
var _a = 'a'
export function changeA(v) {
a = v
}
export {a: _a}
}
This should not work. There is no value in scope inside the module 'A'
On 27 August 2012 11:46, Shijun He hax@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
And is there any difference if module A is write as:
module A {
var _a = 'a'
export function changeA(v) {
a = v
}
export {a: _a}
}
This should
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
No, Luke just meant that the assignment in changeA should read
_a = v
Oh, my typo!
since that is the local name of the variable. After changing that, the
module is indeed equivalent to the other version.
It seems current loader spec is so simple and I'm full of confusion of
baseURL props.
// lib/a.js
System.baseURL // lib/a.js ??
System.load('b.js', ...) // I suppose this should load lib/b.js, right?
var myLoader = new Loader(System, { baseURL: 'mypath/c.js' , fetch:myFetch })
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Shijun He hax@gmail.com wrote:
It seems current loader spec is so simple and I'm full of confusion of
baseURL props.
// lib/a.js
System.baseURL // lib/a.js ??
No, the base url will be an absolute URL, like 'http://example.com/lib/a.js'.
Sorry guys, I just wonder if there's any outcome here ... rather than keep
proposing something else :-)
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
So I have been trying to figure out from the wiki precisely how Private
Name Objects work. When assigned/defined does it expose that property to
all sibling properties/methods or just those present at the time of
assign/define? If you add on to the object later to the new properties get
access?
Le 27/08/2012 15:34, Matthew Robb a écrit :
I'm trying to determine whether when compiling into ES3/5 you could
get away with not attaching some .__privates__ property to the object
and instead just put a closure around the definitions.
For that question, the answer is you cannot. You cannot
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
System.baseURL // lib/a.js ??
No, the base url will be an absolute URL, like 'http://example.com/lib/a.js'.
So in /lib/b.js , System.baseURL will return a diff result
http://example.com/lib/b.js; ?
var myLoader =
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Shijun He hax@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
System.baseURL // lib/a.js ??
No, the base url will be an absolute URL, like 'http://example.com/lib/a.js'.
So in /lib/b.js , System.baseURL
So how do myLoader know what is the URL of the caller?! I mean:
I want:
/a/*.js
myLoader.load('test.js') // load /a/test.js
/b/*.js
myLoader.load('test.js') // load /b/test.js
But myFetch get the identical args: ('test.js', myLoader.baseURL)
This is a point that I've been meaning
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
So in /lib/b.js , System.baseURL will return a diff result
http://example.com/lib/b.js; ?
This depends on how you're loading b.js.
Could explain more about that? I suppose b.js is loaded by system loader.
I
(This pretty much just repeats what hax said...)
`load` is a method, which can be called anywhere. Having it depend on
a dynamically-scoped bit of information such as the url of the file
that the method is called in, would make using loaders much harder to
understand.
Perhaps, but I fear
A name object is not much different from using a string:
let myname1 = S4u-1_tlzUI;
let myname2 = new Name();
someobj[myname1] = 123;
someobj[myname2] = 123;
// In a constructor or method:
this[myname1] = abc;
this[myname2] = abc;
You can pass both around and create properties on any
SO it has to be constructed via new Name() or will it automatically create
Name objects when it encounters an assignment of that form? If you do have
to create it does that mean in order to access it at all you would need to
be in scope of myname2?
My question I think boils down to whether access
On Aug 27, 2012, at 16:55 , Matthew Robb matthewwr...@gmail.com wrote:
SO it has to be constructed via new Name() or will it automatically create
Name objects when it encounters an assignment of that form? If you do have to
create it does that mean in order to access it at all you would
AH okay thanks guys, questions answered!
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
On Aug 27, 2012, at 16:55 , Matthew Robb matthewwr...@gmail.com wrote:
SO it has to be constructed via new Name() or will it automatically create
Name objects when it
So why could this not desugar to?:
var myClass = (function(){
var __test;
function myClass() {
__test = 0;
}
myClass.prototype.getTest = function(){ return __test; }
return myClass;
})();
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le
Hi Matthew,
Sorry, I mislead you. Let me retry:
class myClass{
private test;
constructor(){
this[test] = 0;
}
getTest(){return this[test]};
}
desugars to:
var myClass = (function(){
var test = new Name();
function
I know this has some serious ugly to it but in the spirit of knowing what
COULD potentially create the expected behavior, would this not do the trick?
var myClass = (function(){
function myClass(){
var __priv = Object.create(this);
var __this = __priv.__this =
I don't think that screenshots of search suggestions for a language feature
that hasn't even been published is valid argument in this discussion.
I'd also argue that these results support the current Array.of definition,
eg.
I need to make an array of strings:
Array.of( A, B, C, D );
...Which
Just FTR, no one is proposing type guarded variants. Maybe they'll be
wanted later -- so the alterna-constructor method(s) can be named then.
For now, Array.new is polyfill-able on pre-ES5 implementations if you
are willing to write Array['new'] all over. That is a drag, though.
/be
Matthew
Isn't there a name that we already use for alternative constructors: create?
let object = Object.create(null);
let array = Array.create(A, B, C);
Kevin
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Kevin Smith wrote:
Isn't there a name that we already use for alternative constructors:
create?
let object = Object.create(null);
let array = Array.create(A, B, C);
If only create weren't used for Object.create, which takes a pdmap as
second parameter. That is a complicated beast,
Le 27/08/2012 19:54, Matthew Robb a écrit :
I know this has some serious ugly to it but in the spirit of knowing
what COULD potentially create the expected behavior, would this not do
the trick?
var myClass = (function(){
function myClass(){
var __priv =
A last alternative is to associate private data via a WeakMap (it can be
shimmed in ES5 with the same garbage collection properties and with good
performances) that inherited functions all have access to. It works, but
it's burdensome and doesn't read as well as object properties.
On the
In the end I am not looking for reads well, I am looking for minimal
semantic difference that can ideally work as a target for compiling to es3.
I am PREFERRING to not have functions as ownProperties. I can't use hard
binding because if the function is assigned to some place else it should no
Le 27/08/2012 21:22, Kevin Smith a écrit :
A last alternative is to associate private data via a WeakMap (it
can be shimmed in ES5 with the same garbage collection properties
and with good performances) that inherited functions all have
access to. It works, but it's burdensome
On Monday, August 27, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
Isn't there a name that we already use for alternative constructors:
create?
let object = Object.create(null);
let array = Array.create(A, B, C);
If only create weren't used for Object.create,
On Monday, August 27, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Matthew Robb wrote:
In the end I am not looking for reads well, I am looking for minimal semantic
difference that can ideally work as a target for compiling to es3. I am
PREFERRING to not have functions as ownProperties. I can't use hard binding
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that screenshots of search suggestions for a language feature
that hasn't even been published is valid argument in this discussion.
I'd also argue that these results support the current Array.of
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of its repositioning on the right as a property, I would
intuitively expect new to behave the same way it would as its operator
equivalent (for all constructors, not just Array). By no means do I wish to
I
Shijun He wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Rick Waldronwaldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of its repositioning on the right as a property, I would
intuitively expect new to behave the same way it would as its operator
equivalent (for all constructors, not just Array). By no means
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Shijun He wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Rick Waldronwaldron.r...@gmail.com**
wrote:
Regardless of its repositioning on the right as a property, I would
intuitively expect new to behave the same way it would
Example:
== my.js ==
var myLoader = new Loader(System, {fetch: myFetch}
function myFetch(relURL, baseURL, ...) {...}
myLoader.load('a/a.js', ...)
== a/a.js ==
import x from 'a/a.js' // developer means to load a/a/a.js
...
As I understand, imports in a/a.js (what in this case also import
Yes, as a developer (but not English native speaker), I really feel
uncomfortable with the name “of”.
Considering we already have
Object.create
String.fromCharCode
To keep align with them, I belive “create” or “fromElements” might be
better choices.
2012/8/27 Shijun He
Yes, as a developer (but not English native speaker), I really feel
uncomfortable with the name “of”.
Considering we already have
Object.create
String.fromCharCode
To keep align with them, I belive “create” or “fromElements” might be
better choices.
2012/8/27 Shijun He
Array.fromElements is solid, especially considering how rarely this will be
used, especially given that it competes in ES6 code with `...x = [...x]`
On Aug 27, 2012, at 23:42, 程劭非 csf...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, as a developer (but not English native speaker), I really feel
uncomfortable with
39 matches
Mail list logo
