On 22 Aug 2008, at 22:46, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Finally, I'd like to take a poll: Other than people working on decimal
at IBM and people on the EcmaScript committee, is there anyone on this
list who thinks that decimal adds significant value to EcmaScript? If
so, please speak up. Thanks.
Felix wrote:
Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
...(but restricted to returned values). Also, my brain wants to
allow the following, or at least reserve as a future possibility...
var {a: x, b: y+z} = fn();
your form confuses me a lot, because it's not clear to me where 'y' and
'z' are
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Mike Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, I'd like to take a poll: Other than people working on decimal
at IBM and people on the EcmaScript committee, is there anyone on this
list who thinks that decimal adds significant value to EcmaScript? If
so,
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Mike Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, I'd like to take a poll: Other than people working on decimal
at IBM and people on the EcmaScript committee, is there anyone on this
list who thinks
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Decimal implemented as a library would be sufficient for a 3.1
release. The problem is an interoperable definition for what infix
operators is required for completeness. Taking no other action, the
default behavior for the
Sam Ruby wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, the same as the + operator given a Number and a
library provided Employee, Document, PopupWidget, ..., or any other
user defined type.
Having Decimal.parse(2) + 3 produce 23 is not what I would call fail
fast, as that is a term I
On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, I'd like to take a poll: Other than people working on
decimal
at IBM and people on the EcmaScript committee, is there anyone on
this
list who thinks that decimal adds significant
On Aug 23, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Decimal implemented as a library would be sufficient for a 3.1
release. The problem is an interoperable definition for what infix
operators is
On Aug 22, 2008, at 11:53 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Michael Haufe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Although I'd prefer to control Deletable separately from Fixed,
Using a single state to control deletability, attribute
mutability, and
property
I'm a bit late to this module party...
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Ingvar von Schoultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the descriptions it looks like this could instead use
a syntax based on destructuring assignment, if es-harmony
will have destructuring:
var {toggle: t, set: s} =
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
The module system proposals, especially the one here --
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:modules
Oh, a module party! Sorry I'm late and thanks to Peter Michaux for
alerting me that I was missing out. Ihab,
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having Decimal.parse(2) + 3 produce 23 is not what I would call fail
fast, as that is a term I would typically use for throwing an exception or
the like.
Point well taken. Does Maciej's followup regarding valueOf throwing
Peter,
Can you provide concrete examples (something a few lines longer than a
hello world module) which shows both the module and importer code?
sink.js
/**
this module provides a `sink` function which allows the
user to cause a DOM element to forward its events to
one and only
On Aug 23, 2008, at 8:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Mike Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Finally, I'd like to take a poll: Other than people working on
decimal
at IBM and people on the EcmaScript committee, is there anyone on
this
list who thinks
On Aug 23, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Fergus Cooney wrote:
Another use I have for redeclaring variables is when I want to
reuse the
name but there's a clear separation between the previous use and
the new
use. For example, I might have a variable to amass a bunch of html
snippets
and then
I've noticed that the ecmascript.org home page has some things that
seem outdated, such as evolutionary programming. It would be great
to see an update to point to the ES 3.1 and Harmony Drafts (in HTML
would be great).
Thanks,
Garrett
___
Es-discuss
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:
So is there anything that is really an issue with the proposed
desugaring?
Of course. First, it's unnecessary and confusing to have two ways to
write
(function (x, y)
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(function (x, y) {...})(a, b)
would be quite welcome. It is clear people like this pattern and it is
confusing when the formals and actuals are more than a couple and more
than a couple lines apart.
As Lars pointed out,
18 matches
Mail list logo
