On May 5, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Still does not connote non-existent.
If all these handlers are only invoked in missing property
situations then we can probably get away with an implicitly non-
existent connotation.
The ones that want to be called for existent
liorean wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
wrote:
function(a=1, b=defaultVal);
And in this syntax will default values be used if the parameter is
falsey or only if it is undefined?
2009/5/5 Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com:
Or only if it is
Brendan Eich wrote:
[...]
I finally found time to write up a proposal, sketchy and incomplete, but
ready for some ever-lovin' es-discuss peer review ;-).
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:catchalls
# Catchalls are sometimes thought of as being called for every
# access to a
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
[...]
I finally found time to write up a proposal, sketchy and incomplete, but
ready for some ever-lovin' es-discuss peer review ;-).
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:catchalls
# Catchalls are sometimes thought of as being
On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Note that the translation-basis of Valija, WebSandbox, and FBJS2 is a
distinct issue, since the goal there is to instantiate multiple
emulated global environments within a single actual global
environment. Catchalls may or may not help here as
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Let's cut to the chase if we can. I don't buy the SES first, since it's not
clear SES is usable but Web Sandbox and others like it are already in use.
For the record, other like it are indeed already in use (FBJS[2?] on
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
People often write the following at the
beginning of functions for optional parameters
On May 6, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
A lot of people don't understand JavaScript falsey value equality and
since || works in their server-side language they assume it works the
same way in JavaScript. It compiles and runs after all! ;-)
Compiling and running is often all that's
On May 6, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
Let's cut to the chase if we can. I don't buy the SES first, since
it's not
clear SES is usable but Web Sandbox and others like it are already
in use.
For the
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
[...] For the Valija-like level, I
think the most important enabler would be some kind of hermetic eval
or spawn primitive for making a new global context (global object and
set of primordials) whose connection to the
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Current position: long default parameter values, short ||= and ??=.
I like that. The great virtue of ||= is that it can be explained as
repairing a non-orthogonality, thereby making the language *simpler*
to explain. But
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Your taxonomy is not shared by everyone, and it contains assumptions I've
questioned.
Of course. I'm trying to open discussion of these, not end discussion.
Please question away.
I'd rather start from real-world
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com wrote:
I think optional parameters are the nuisance use case that is fueling
any discussion about a ||= or ??= operator.
There are other uses that are similar, but wouldn't be covered by
default args. Here's one simple example:
On May 6, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I'd rather start from real-world use-cases wherever they may be.
Caja on YAP is a deployed real world use case of Valija layered on
Cajita.
Cool, you know more about it than I do -- what does it want from
catchalls that's not there? What
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
[...]
This is a big topic, I'll save it for another day.
[...]
But again this is a bigger topic than catchalls and I will shut up for now.
Language design is, among many other things, a form of search in a
large
I don't think ||= and ??= are very difficult to define clearly.
Perhaps just a line each in terms of the expanded syntax. I don't
think they would add much bloat to engines. Perhaps just better to add
them both and move on to discussing classes, lambdas, or processes.
a ||= b;
a = a || b;
On May 6, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Ash Berlin wrote:
You could make a case for adding a ?? operator for symmetry.
Example of usage:
some_func(a, b ?? c );
Roger that, given ??= it would be strange to leave out ??.
I'm still trying to leave out both ;-).
/be
I'm quite partial to an
On May 6, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Neil Mix wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Ash Berlin wrote:
You could make a case for adding a ?? operator for symmetry.
Example of usage:
some_func(a, b ?? c );
Roger that, given ??= it would be strange to leave out ??.
I'm still trying to leave out both
All -
Well, Sister Eugenia always did say I was a disruptive influence in
grade school - guess I haven't changed much :-).
Let me throw another idea into the mix and churn the pot a bit more.
Many moons ago when I was a Smalltalker, I always liked the fact that
'nil' in Smalltalk was a
19 matches
Mail list logo
