if (h == 0)
h = function() {break};
Did you mean if (x == 0)? That's been confusing me in trying to read your
example.
Dave
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it stands, I always write the following in ES3
var f = function() {};
and now that arguments.callee is on the chopping block, I've started
Inline.
Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
So as far as I can tell, what we need to discourage usage of
func.toString() is:
1) An API for function currying/partial evaluation (specializing/binding
certain arguments).
2) A read-only property on functions that contains the list of parameter
names.
Peter Michaux wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it stands, I always write the following in ES3
var f = function() {};
and now that arguments.callee is on the chopping
On Oct 11, 2008, at 7:25 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
It is correct to say, though, that:
function foo() {
...
{ var bar = baz; }
...
}
is equivalent to
function foo() {
let bar = undefined;
...
{ bar = baz; }
...
}
That is, 'var' need not be
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 11, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
How to define a variable that is local to the enclosing lambda? Isn't
the ability to do that essential?
Use let (the var replacement declaration form).
Sounds good to me
Also, I wonder why lambda in it's block-less form is restricted to
expressions.
I'm with you... but I'd want to check with the experts on the ES grammar to see
whether this introduces any nasty ambiguities.
Dave
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Sounds good to me but it is a little confusing to keep track if let
is either in or out of ES-Harmony and if it is partly in then which
of
the several JavaScript 1.7 uses are in and if there will be let,
let*, letrec semantics.
I've got no crystal ball, but I'd say it'd be unlikely (and
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use let (the var replacement declaration form).
Sounds good to me but it is a little confusing to keep track if let
is either in or out of ES-Harmony and if it is partly in then which of
the several JavaScript 1.7 uses
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The let declaration is in. Like const and function declarations, it
has block-level letrec lexical scoping. I continue to oppose let
expressions and let statements, as they don't provide enough
additional power to
On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:55 PM, David Herman wrote:
How to define a variable that is local to the enclosing lambda? Isn't
the ability to do that essential?
No. With all due respect to Brendan, `var' hoisting to the top of a
function body is one of the more problematic aspects of ES's
On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 11, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
How to define a variable that is local to the enclosing lambda?
Isn't
the ability to do that essential?
Use let
On Oct 11, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
and if it is partly in then which of
the several JavaScript 1.7 uses are in and if there will be let,
let*, letrec semantics.
It's something else. See my reply about hoisting, just sent.
Hi Dave, first, my compliments on your lambda proposal. This should
significantly simplify the core language after expanding sugars --
especially if you succeed at redefining function as desugaring to
lambdas. That would be awesome!
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 5:34 AM, David Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 11, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We've discussed making use-before-set a strict error, but we've
avoided it. The initialiser is not mandatory, and we do not wish to
impose costly analysis on small
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, let expressions would need lambda-coding no matter what
names were shadowed. The experience gained in JS1.7+ shows more let
block usage than let expression, but expression temporaries (lacking
macros and ignoring
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Dave Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read the proposal again: the statement form of lambdas *does* return the
value of its last expression; this is what ES3 calls the completion value.
Cool! So why are we still discussing proposed let expressions and let
blocks
17 matches
Mail list logo
