a report on how i18n support was added to ES3

One of things that is hard to find is the actual rationale for various decisions were make in previous editions of the ES standards. Particularly ES1-3. Norbert has found an interesting report from 1999 that explains the decisions that were made regarding internationalization issues in ES3.

Re: unzip primitive and/or implicit array-of-objects to object-of-arrays in destructuring

Herhut, Stephan A wrote: Either, rather conservatively, that an unzip primitive be added to Array/ParallelArray +1 or that destructuring be extended such that if it encounters a lhs object pattern and a rhs evaluating to an array of objects that it be destructured into objects of arrays

Re: unzip primitive and/or implicit array-of-objects to object-of-arrays in destructuring

On 5/22/12 3:27 PM, "Rick Waldron" wrote: > > >On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Herhut, Stephan A > wrote: > >While exploring use cases for data-parallel concurrency in JavaScript >using the ParallelArray API (see > >http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:data_parallelism >

Re: unzip primitive and/or implicit array-of-objects to object-of-arrays in destructuring

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Herhut, Stephan A < stephan.a.her...@intel.com> wrote: > While exploring use cases for data-parallel concurrency in JavaScript > using the ParallelArray API (see > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:data_parallelism) I found > myself wanting better sup

unzip primitive and/or implicit array-of-objects to object-of-arrays in destructuring

While exploring use cases for data-parallel concurrency in JavaScript using the ParallelArray API (see http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:data_parallelism) I found myself wanting better support for multiple results from a single parallel operation. More precisely, I wanted a neat w

Re: ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

TC39 is obviously not the right place for FFI, but the subject can be discussed. I and my former team did develop (modestly) quite a lot of stuff as well that could be called FFI, result : 0 in the middle/long term Hopefully now the web gets some nice things like node.js at server side But a

Re: Minimal Classes as Constructors (was: Re: Classes as Cosntructors)

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Herby Vojčík wrote: > > > Luke Hoban wrote: > >> In the discussion of max/min classes at the March TC39 meeting, there >> was support for minimal class syntax, but a couple concerns with >> max/min classes in particular. >> >> One category of concern is the (inten

Minimal Classes as Constructors (was: Re: Classes as Cosntructors)

Luke Hoban wrote: In the discussion of max/min classes at the March TC39 meeting, there was support for minimal class syntax, but a couple concerns with max/min classes in particular. One category of concern is the (intentional) bare-bones nature of max/min. In this case though, I think it ha

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

Luke Hoban wrote: Herby Vojčík wrote: I just don't understand why you use class keyword here. This will work without any changes, as-is, with plain function keyword. After all, you just augment a constructor definition. The body of this kind of function is different, in that it can define

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

Luke Hoban wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: I think this proposal has one fatal flaw and that was what brought it down the last time we had a proposal which used the same concepts. Given: class C(x) { public method() { return x; } } It seems like the argumen

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Luke Hoban wrote: > The code above would be rewritten: > >  class C(public x) { >    public method() { >      return this.x; >    } >  } But also, class C(x) { var y = 42; public method() { return x + y; } } This can be solved by treating all variable

RE: Classes as Cosntructors

>> It looks like methods on the prototype can access constructor arguments >> when they can't. I worry that users would expect this to work: >> class Rect(width, height) { >>   public area() { return width * height; } >> } Right - this is the concern that others raised on a parallel branch of th

RE: Classes as Cosntructors

Herby Vojčík wrote: > I just don't understand why you use class keyword here. This will work > without any changes, as-is, with plain function keyword. After all, you just > augment a constructor definition. The body of this kind of function is different, in that it can define instance proper

RE: Classes as Cosntructors

On May 22, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > I think this proposal has one fatal flaw and that was what brought it > down the last time we had a proposal which used the same concepts. > Given: > > class C(x) { > public method() { >return x; > } > } > > It seems like the arguments

Re: ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

On 22 May 2012 12:54, Aymeric Vitte wrote: > I don't see how a FFI could really help developers. > FFIs are certainly helpful in many situations. I don't think this is one of them. Let me relay a relevant xperience. We develop applications in "Server-Side JavaScript". We have an FFI that, wi

Re: ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

I don't see how a FFI could really help developers. What would be needed is a not empty intersection between http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/navigation/, https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI, WHAT WG, W3C, etc, unfortunately it is not the case at all Or something like phonegap if it can

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

With respect, I have to say that I vastly prefer the current class proposal (http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes). I remember being struck when I first read it (only recently, about a month ago) at how incredibly sensible that proposal was. Some issues I see with this alternativ

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

On May 22, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > I think this proposal has one fatal flaw and that was what brought it > down the last time we had a proposal which used the same concepts. > Given: > > class C(x) { > public method() { >return x; > } > } > > It seems like the arguments t

Re: ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

Claus Reinke wrote: Different native-code compilers and OSes (not always tied, btw) will choose different FFIs, depending on local macro- and micro-economics. Even today we have a choice between calling conventions on Windows (not always obvious; Rust has changed at least once in its young life

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

Luke Hoban wrote: In the discussion of max/min classes at the March TC39 meeting, there was support for minimal class syntax, but a couple concerns with max/min classes in particular. One category of concern is the (intentional) bare-bones nature of max/min. In this case though, I think it ha

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

I think this proposal has one fatal flaw and that was what brought it down the last time we had a proposal which used the same concepts. Given: class C(x) { public method() { return x; } } It seems like the arguments to the constructor are in scope for the entire class body when they real

Re: Classes as Cosntructors

I think this is really interesting. This will look like I'm poking holes here, but please don't take that to mean that I don't find the overall approach worth investigating. You can consider anything I *don't *poke at to be a sign of approval. Some concerns: *It looks like methods on the prototy

Royalty free agreement

Hi John, I think I'll need some more information in order to get the royalty free process rolling. You said that Google is already working on that - it would be nice to have a contact info for the representative, so I can talk to him. Also if I need to show any documentation to people, a link to d

Classes as Cosntructors

In the discussion of max/min classes at the March TC39 meeting, there was support for minimal class syntax, but a couple concerns with max/min classes in particular. One category of concern is the (intentional) bare-bones nature of max/min. In this case though, I think it has been demonstrated

Re: WeakMaps functionality, within regular object semantics

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > The "weak reference" semantics needs to apply to the entire collection in > order to avoid key/value circularity induced leaks I don't think this is quite right. The semantics need to refer to both (a) the object containing the entry an

Re: ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

Different native-code compilers and OSes (not always tied, btw) will choose different FFIs, depending on local macro- and micro-economics. Even today we have a choice between calling conventions on Windows (not always obvious; Rust has changed at least once in its young life). That is all with