Re: ECMAScript collation question

2012-09-02 Thread Markus Scherer
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Mark Davis ☕ m...@macchiato.com wrote: Your proposal looks reasonable, except I'm not sure how someone would use the kk value to get #2. Could we say kk=default? markus ___ es-discuss mailing list

Typo in direct proxy proposal for the apply trap

2012-09-02 Thread David Bruant
Hi, In the proxy proposal, one can read the following signature for the apply trap: apply: function(target,receiver,args) - any But the receiver doesn't make much sense to me. Is it just a typo or am I missing something? David [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:direct_proxies

iterate and enumerate trap signature inconsistency

2012-09-02 Thread David Bruant
Hi, The enumerate (for..in loops) and iterate (for..of loops) traps have inconsistent signatures. The former needs an array of strings to be returns, the latter an iterator. I would tend to be in favor of both returning an iterator to avoid allocating, filling freeing memory in case of

Re: Typo in direct proxy proposal for the apply trap

2012-09-02 Thread Rick Waldron
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, In the proxy proposal, one can read the following signature for the apply trap: apply: function(target,receiver,args) - any But the receiver doesn't make much sense to me. Is it just a typo or am I missing

Re: Typo in direct proxy proposal for the apply trap

2012-09-02 Thread David Bruant
Le 02/09/2012 20:38, Rick Waldron a écrit : On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com mailto:bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, In the proxy proposal, one can read the following signature for the apply trap: apply: function(target,receiver,args) - any

Re: iterate and enumerate trap signature inconsistency

2012-09-02 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 11:13 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, The enumerate (for..in loops) and iterate (for..of loops) traps have inconsistent signatures. The former needs an array of strings to be returns, the latter an iterator. I would tend to be in favor of both returning

Re: ECMAScript collation question

2012-09-02 Thread Mark Davis ☕
We could propose to the CLDR group adding attribute=default to mean (for CLDR) the same as missing (at least for kk, if not others). That would formally work, but would mean than in an ECMAScript context missing != default, while in other CLDR contexts, missing == default. May work, but any

Re: Typo in direct proxy proposal for the apply trap

2012-09-02 Thread Brandon Benvie
The use of the term receiver is somewhat misleading when put next to the receiver in the get and set traps. For get and set the receiver is always the proxy unless it's an object that has the proxy as its [[prototype]]. For function invocation the receiver is the callsite object which is never

Re: Convergence options for Ecmascript/Actionscript?

2012-09-02 Thread Peter van der Zee
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: You really should read back in es-discuss if you have time (understand if you don't!). We covered what made ES4 fail. The main problem was namespaces, upon which packages were built. Unfortunately, AS3 uses namespaces

Re: ECMAScript collation question

2012-09-02 Thread Markus Scherer
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Mark Davis ☕ m...@macchiato.com wrote: We could propose to the CLDR group adding attribute=default to mean (for CLDR) the same as missing (at least for kk, if not others). I don't think that CLDR needs that just because ECMAScript might have it. markus

Re: Convergence options for Ecmascript/Actionscript?

2012-09-02 Thread Brendan Eich
Peter van der Zee wrote: On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org wrote: You really should read back in es-discuss if you have time (understand if you don't!). We covered what made ES4 fail. The main problem was namespaces, upon which packages were built.