Le 22/03/2011 22:29, Peter van der Zee a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22.03.2011 23:42, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
About the string_repeat strawman
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Joshua Bell j...@lindenlab.com wrote:
I was noodling with a (toy) compiler-to-JS for a (dead) language that
supports error handlers for two boundary conditions - stack depth exceeded
out of memory - and noticed that the relevant behavior in JS is not standard
Hi David,
As I understand it, the difference between the two patterns you presented is
not so much in using a full forwarding handler versus an own forwarding
handler, but in the fact that you pass different initial prototypes.
Consider:
var p = Proxy.create(fullForwardingHandler(target),
Hi David,
In one of the first discussion about proxies on this list, the question
popped up on whether proxy handlers should implement inheritance (prototype
chain walking) themselves, or whether the engine should take care of this,
only allowing the handler to control the own layer. The
Le 22/03/2011 00:08, David Bruant a écrit :
Hi,
Proxies can be helpful to emulate multiple inheritance
(http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2011/02/21/multiple-inheritance-in-javascript/).
Long story short, with the get and set traps, you can emulate this
multiple inheritance without having
Le 23/03/2011 11:26, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
Hi David,
In one of the first discussion about proxies on this list, the
question popped up on whether proxy handlers should implement
inheritance (prototype chain walking) themselves, or whether the
engine should take care of this, only allowing
On 23.03.2011 0:18, David Bruant wrote:
Le 22/03/2011 02:39, Dmitry A. Soshnikov a écrit :
On 22.03.2011 23:42, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
About the string_repeat strawman
(http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:string_repeat), one
alternative solution could be a two argument
Here are my raw notes from the last couple days.
Ask the GA for a way for non-members to sign software contribution agreements?
Waldemar: Thinks this would be a hard sell in the GA. They'll be
annoyed at increasing provisions for non-members to participate.
Istvan: This should not be too
On 3/22/11, Joshua Bell j...@lindenlab.com wrote:
I was noodling with a (toy) compiler-to-JS for a (dead) language that
supports error handlers for two boundary conditions - stack depth exceeded
out of memory - and noticed that the relevant behavior in JS is not standard
across browsers. Has
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
The infinite recursion could be detected and reported early. Where
does that happen? Does any engine report early for infinite recursion?
Non-trivial infinite recursion can't be detected early, and it's the
non-trivial cases that people miss
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
javascript: alert(new InternalError(Got on tha inside, bitch!));
Hrm. seems odd to expose the constructor publicly.
Necessary to permit instanceof testing, no?
The infinite recursion could be detected and reported
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
The infinite recursion could be detected and reported early. Where
does that happen? Does any engine report early for infinite recursion?
No
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
javascript: alert(new InternalError(Got on tha inside, bitch!));
Hrm. seems odd to expose the constructor publicly.
Necessary to permit instanceof testing, no?
Bad quoting made it confusing, but I was (am) right. Edited as intended below:
On 3/23/11, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
javascript: alert(new
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bad quoting made it confusing, but I was (am) right. Edited as intended
below:
On 3/23/11, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver
15 matches
Mail list logo