@Gavin Barraclough :
I don't get the point of having the code break in old browsers...
When you use this code:
use version 6; with ({hi:Hi!}) alert(hi);
It will throw an error and this is what you want it to do. Just like
when you used use strict;
Of course, it would work in old browsers and
Hi,
There is this one thing in JavaScript I really hate: You can't so
{{$varName}} as in PHP so as soon as you need dynamic names, you have
to put everything in an object...
I don't know how scopes are implemented but there should be a not so
hard way to make them available as JS objects. The
2011/12/20 Xavier MONTILLET xavierm02@gmail.com:
Hi,
There is this one thing in JavaScript I really hate: You can't so
{{$varName}} as in PHP so as soon as you need dynamic names, you have
to put everything in an object...
I don't know how scopes are implemented
Not being able to get
What kind of optimizations? The variable have to be in some kind of
structure and it should be possible to read it as an object the same
way you read it as variables...
The fact that the inheritance between scopes I spoke of would be
hard to implement because they keep a one level deep structure
I was speaking of ES 5 + use strict; since it needs you to opt-in.
ES 5 itself doesn't.
Given the nature of the changes in ES6 I'm not sure that there will be much
scope to write code that benefits form utilizing ES6 and yet would still run
on a browser supporting only ES5. If you want to
I would love to have something like Python’s locals():
http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/functions.html#locals
It would not allow modifications, but it would still be very useful.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
On 20 December 2011 11:24, Xavier MONTILLET xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
What kind of optimizations?
Optimizations such as putting variables in registers, putting
variables on the stack, overlaying variables with disjoint life times,
eliminating some variables entirely, minimizing closure
Well what about you add an if that checks whether scope is used or not
and if it is disables these optimizations?
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 20 December 2011 11:24, Xavier MONTILLET xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
What kind of optimizations?
In a way it would be like proxies: slow if used but doesn't change
anything if you don't use them.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
Well what about you add an if that checks whether scope is used or not
and if it is disables these optimizations?
- @Tom: Found bugs in DirectProxies.js
Thanks for reporting, but I don't think these are bugs:
1. Properties created via assignment gets `false' value for descriptor
attributes; should be true. E.g. foo.bar = 10, where `foo' is direct proxy,
makes bar non-configurable
I can't
2011/12/17 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
I don't think that the default you propose are a good idea, because it
will make bugs harder to track. Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor
returning 'undefined' for any property does not sound like a good idea.
Likewise for Object.getOwnPropertyNames
On 20 December 2011 11:51, Xavier MONTILLET xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
Well what about you add an if that checks whether scope is used or not
and if it is disables these optimizations?
That's what's done for things like the `arguments' object. And it's an
ugly mess, in terms of semantics as
[off-list]
Le 20/12/2011 14:11, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
VirtualHandlers are for creating virtual objects (for instance, a
remote object proxy for which there is no real physical target object
acting as a backing store).
Speaking of which, I'm reading the PDF version Structure and
On 17 December 2011 00:24, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I used to think this way about private names and proxies, and argued
for this position. However, I was wrong and it's a bad idea. Here's
why:
You might want to implement an object with a private field and a
public
Le 17/12/2011 14:24, David Bruant a écrit :
(...)
# Proposal
What about a 'trapped' boolean in the private name constructor?
It would work this way:
`JavaScript
var n = new Name(false); // don't trap when used is a proxy
var p = new Proxy({}, maliciousHandler);
p[n] = 21; // the
Le 20/12/2011 14:45, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 17 December 2011 00:24, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I used to think this way about private names and proxies, and argued
for this position. However, I was wrong and it's a bad idea. Here's
why:
You might want to implement
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
And what do you mean by opt-in for ES6 ? New syntax ? Everything in ES 6 ?
Not everything. Let me try to explain the opt-in.
ES6 must not break existing code. This is non-negotiable. Nobody will
use a Web browser
Le 20/12/2011 22:45, Jason Orendorff a écrit :
As I understand the current proposals, opt-in will be required for scripts
that
(...)
- need the top-level scope to be declarative,
rather than tied to the global object as in ES5;
Where is the proposal for this? I can't find it at
18 matches
Mail list logo
