On Nov 19, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
For several things in the DOM and related APIs, we want objects that
are more-or-less the same as some basic ES stuff, like Arrays or Maps,
and which are appropriate to treat as those objects in a generic
manner.
For
Actually, looking at this IDL more closely, I see unneeded invariants
causing most of the problem. If URLQuery subclasses Map (assuming we make
this possible, which we should), it only needs to promise to hand back
strings, not take them. The behavior can simply be defined as
toString()-ing the
On 16 November 2012 22:19, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
On 11/16/2012 07:06 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
So it seems to me premature to throw on [[GetOwnProperty]] of a strict
function's 'caller'. It would be more precise, and avoid the problem you're
hitting, to return a property
For URLQuery in particular, since it's a String-String map, why not just use a
plain-old-JavaScript-object with appropriate interceptions via a proxy? This
provides a much more idiomatic API:
new URLQuery(object) stays the same
urlQuery.get(name) - urlQuery[name][0]
urlQuery.getAll(name) -
I think the basic issue here is that DOM is over-specifying the constraints
(I assume because WebIDL makes that most natural?), not the available JS
hacks to implement their weirdo type constraints. Lets not feed the
misdesign trolls = )
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Domenic Denicola
On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:01 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 16 November 2012 22:19, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
On 11/16/2012 07:06 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
So it seems to me premature to throw on [[GetOwnProperty]] of a strict
function's 'caller'. It would be more precise, and avoid
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
For URLQuery in particular, since it's a String-String map, why not just
use a plain-old-JavaScript-object with appropriate interceptions via a
proxy? This provides a much more idiomatic API:
new
[+es-discuss]
Speaking only for myself at this point -- I do not recall MultiMap
previously being suggested to the committee.
I think adding a MultiMap API to ES7 is a good idea. Neither Map nor
MultiMap should be a subclass of the other, since neither is an LSP
subtype of the other.
Since Map
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If we did this, the only reason to continue subclassing Map is to get
instanceof checks to work. Is this acceptable?
I think it's either irrelevant (no one tests 'aUrlQuery instanceof Map') or
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Since Map and Set will be in ES6 and MultiMap is trivially
implementable from these, we can wait until we see some experimental
implementations before standardizing. Hence the ES7 target.
Here’s my experimental
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Alex Russell a...@dojotoolkit.org wrote:
Actually, looking at this IDL more closely, I see unneeded invariants
causing most of the problem. If URLQuery subclasses Map (assuming we make
this possible, which we should),
Already possible. AWB posted code to
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
For URLQuery in particular, since it's a String-String map, why not just
use a plain-old-JavaScript-object with appropriate
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
[+es-discuss]
Speaking only for myself at this point -- I do not recall MultiMap
previously being suggested to the committee.
I think adding a MultiMap API to ES7 is a good idea. Neither Map nor
MultiMap should be a
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
[+es-discuss]
Speaking only for myself at this point -- I do not recall MultiMap
previously being suggested to the committee.
I think
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If we did this, the only reason to continue subclassing Map is to get
instanceof checks to work. Is this acceptable?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If we did this, the only reason to continue
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If we did this, the only reason to
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Peter van der Zee e...@qfox.nl wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Alex Russell a...@dojotoolkit.org
wrote:
Actually, looking at this IDL more closely, I see unneeded invariants
causing most of the problem. If URLQuery subclasses Map (assuming we
Tom Van Custem have been having some email discussion while I work on
integrating Proxys into the ES6 spec. He and I agree that some broader input
would be useful so I'm going to forward some of the message here to es-discuss
and carry the discussion forward here. Here is the first message
Hi Allen,
2012/11/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
The proxy spec.for Object.getOwnPropertyNames/kets/etc. seem to be doing quite
a bit more than this. They
1) always copy the array returned from the trap? Why is this necessary? Sure
the author of a trap should probably always
On Nov 19, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
Hi Allen,
2012/11/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
The proxy spec.for Object.getOwnPropertyNames/kets/etc. seem to be doing
quite a bit more than this. They
1) always copy the array returned from the trap? Why is this
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
This is all very tricky and you may be able to make it work. But why?
Do you anticipate passing a multimap into a place that expects a map?
For these use cases, do you expect that the passer of the multimap
reliably
2012/11/19 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
On Nov 19, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
The copying is to ensure:
a) that the result is an Array
Why is Array-ness essential? It was what ES5 specified, but ES5 had a fixed
implementations of Object.getOwnPropertyNames/keys so
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of course, that pattern is broken too - it lets you detect actual
Arrays, but not things that subclass Array.
That's not possible in
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nope, that's not good enough. For example, you have to do input
cleanup (replacing lone surrogates with U+FFFD, escaping , etc.)
which
(for some reason the followup message didn't seem to make it to es-discuss the
first time I redirected them. so here goes using an alternative technique.
Sorry in advance with we end up with duplicate messages)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com
Date: November
Begin forwarded message:
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
Date: November 19, 2012 2:11:52 PM PST
To: Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com
Cc: Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com, Jason Orendorff
jorendo...@mozilla.com
Subject: Re: possible excessive proxy invariants for
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com
Date: November 20, 2012 11:36:24 AM PST
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
Cc: Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com, Jason Orendorff
jorendo...@mozilla.com
Subject: Re: possible excessive proxy invariants for
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of course, that pattern is broken too - it lets you detect actual
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nope, that's not good enough. For example, you have to do input
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
function foo() {...}
foo.prototype = [];
var a = new foo();
a.push(1);
a.length; // 1
a.length = 0;
console.log(a);
{0:1,length:0}
Again, it's
Could you use a client that quotes properly? Your responses keep
flattening the quotes to a single level, making it impossible to tell
where each ends.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
In regards to the non-configurable/extensible issue, the issue is that the
proxy still needs to be *notified* of what's happening, but it's not really
allowed to *trap* because the result is predetermined. Currently this is
handled by treating it like a normal trap activation with extra
and my first reply, direct to es-discuss...
On Nov 20, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com
Date: November 20, 2012 11:36:24 AM PST
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
Cc: Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com,
On Nov 20, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In regards to the non-configurable/extensible issue, the issue is that the
proxy still needs to be *notified* of what's happening, but it's not really
allowed to *trap* because the result is predetermined. Currently this is
handled by
37 matches
Mail list logo
