Re: Proxy

On 15 December 2016 at 03:26, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > I presume most implementations define scope >> variables much like object properties internally. >> > > That's not clear to me at all. In general, non-object environments don't > need to support all the operations objects do

Re: Proxy

On 12/14/16 8:47 PM, Uther Pendragon wrote: Perhaps it's a bit late... but I'd like to discuss the proxy object. Notably: why no way to define a hook for when a property is called as a function. See thread at . I think I understand

Proxy

Perhaps it's a bit late... but I'd like to discuss the proxy object. Notably: why no way to define a hook for when a property is called as a function. I think I understand *why* there isn't one.. I presume because how a property is used (I.e. as a property or called as a function) is a level

Re: Destructuring object outside of var declaration

On 11/13/2016 12:33 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote: > Okay. Is it a spec bug then? Throwing a ReferenceError is surprising and odd > IMHO. I think so -- having different sorts of early errors makes it a little less clear what sort of error should be thrown when two early errors of different types are

Re: Ranges

IMO this is quite unnecessary syntax sugar. Python has everything you could need here without special syntax. On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 16:55, Jeremy Martin wrote: > While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does > have a superficial consistency with the

Re: Ranges

While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO. On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima wrote: > I

Re: Ranges

I understand. I hope to find a good form of literals. Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following cases? ``` for (let i of [1 to 5]) { .. } vs for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { .. } ``` If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests. 2016-12-14 17:29

Re: Ranges

I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible. It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an inconsistencies