I think you misunderstand the relationship between what Dave said, and
The purpose of my questions is to remove misunderstandings -
it is entirely possible that some of them are on my side!-)
If you have dynamic modules, you can't use them to export any
compile-time
constructs, like macros,
On Apr 2, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
P.S.:
Offtopic footnote. 6 types:
1. Function Declaration (FD). Features: hoisting, always named.
2. Function Expression (FE). Features: no hoisting, available for
immediately invoked functions (IIF).
3. Named Function
Jorge wrote:
No [[Scope]]? I must be missing something! Given this code:
bound= (function a(i) { return function b () { return i }.bind(null) })(27);
bound()
-- 27
How can bound() resolve `i` without a [[Scope]] ?
By delegating to bound()'s [[TargetFunction]], which does have a
On Apr 2, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Jorge wrote:
No [[Scope]]? I must be missing something! Given this code:
bound= (function a(i) { return function b () { return i }.bind(null) })(27);
bound()
-- 27
How can bound() resolve `i` without a [[Scope]] ?
By delegating to
Jorge wrote:
I saw it
here:http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2012/03/30/what-is-the-meaning-of-this
Right -- I think Doug was remembering the Harmony of My Dreams
sharp-functions
(http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/#sharp_functions),
but arrows express mutable function objects
Hi David,
Your protected work reminds me a lot of what we did with `namespcase` module in
jetpack:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/sdk/latest/packages/api-utils/namespace.html
Which I also blogged about some time ago:
http://jeditoolkit.com/2012/03/15/namespaces.html#post
In
On 4/2/2012 8:24 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I saw it
here:http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2012/03/30/what-is-the-meaning-of-this
Right -- I think Doug was remembering the Harmony of My Dreams
sharp-functions
(http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/#sharp_functions),
but
Douglas Crockford wrote:
On 4/2/2012 8:24 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I saw it
here:http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2012/03/30/what-is-the-meaning-of-this
Right -- I think Doug was remembering the Harmony of My Dreams
sharp-functions
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Douglas Crockford wrote:
On 4/2/2012 8:24 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I saw it
here:http://www.yuiblog.com/**blog/2012/03/30/what-is-the-**
The main issue you will see if you do user studies on people trying to
do OOP in JS is that the way to set up the prototype chain in ES3/5 is
too hard. There is a reason why almost all JS libraries add ways to
make this easier.
With the let C = B | function() { ... }.prototype.{ ...
}.constructor
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
The main issue you will see if you do user studies on people trying to
do OOP in JS is that the way to set up the prototype chain in ES3/5 is
too hard. There is a reason why almost all JS libraries add ways to
make
On Apr 2, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
...
We had an agreement last year in TC39 to avoid making new shorter function
syntax implicitly freeze where the new shorter syntax falls in full function
syntax's general body-plan. This was the impetus for the # prefix, which also
can
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
No doubt I'm repeating myself fro a previous message, so I'll be more
forceful. dynamic this is a core OO concept but dynamic this in a
non-method context is an abomination.
The problem is non-method context is ill-defined in JS (ES5.1 or
lower), without extensions.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Douglas Crockford wrote:
It seems I misunderstood what we were agreeing to. I think the (this...)
form is critically important, and the immutability thing as well.
(...)
I agree that leading |this| could be important for dynamic
Allen's original post on this thread offered two choices:
1) extended object literals, (good building blocks).
2) both, (because class gives 80% and thus they complement).
Erik and Tab are arguing for
3) Min-max classes (we need 80%, not building blocks).
The current winner no one wants:
On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Jorge wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Douglas Crockford wrote:
It seems I misunderstood what we were agreeing to. I think the (this...)
form is critically important, and the immutability thing as well.
(...)
I agree that leading
16 matches
Mail list logo
