On 8 May 2013 07:10, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be gained by
moving the property alone to Annex B? If nothing, then I think this
consistency should win.
JavaScript implementations in new or existing eco systems that are not
poisoned by web legacy wouldn't be obliged to
Hmm. It's funny, you know, Python programs sometimes say
import os
and I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the word os there is
really just a URL or really just a filename.
There are at least two issues underlying this difference:
- Other languages are generally free to
On 7 May 2013 21:17, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
My point on the topic of external naming is that the language (1)
should not prescribe any specific naming scheme; (2) should not
willfully violate URI
On May 8, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 8 May 2013 07:10, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be gained by
moving the property alone to Annex B? If nothing, then I think this
consistency should win.
JavaScript implementations in new or existing eco systems that
On 7 May 2013 21:48, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 1 May 2013 01:15, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
There are several reasons why module declarations are important.
1. Right now, every
What about your triangle argument?
Cheers
--MarkM
On May 8, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 8, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 8 May 2013 07:10, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be gained by
moving the property
On May 8, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
What about your triangle argument?
There is another way:
let obj = Object.setPrototypeOf({x:0, y:0}, pointProto};
Let's keep {__proto__: foo} in the slightly disrespectable Annex B box. That
keeps it together with O.p.__proto and leaves room
On 8 May 2013 17:41, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 8, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
What about your triangle argument?
There is another way:
let obj = Object.setPrototypeOf({x:0, y:0}, pointProto};
Let's keep {__proto__: foo} in the slightly disrespectable
Le 07/05/2013 18:30, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
You did not answer my question Mark: what is the role of TC39, embrace
whatever non-standard crossbrowser thing or filter ideas proposing
better alternatives/solutions when necessary in order to have a solid
foundation instead of having
Hi David, I am Mark and speak only for my fraction of TC39 ;). But I am
happy with your summary. Thanks.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 07/05/2013 18:30, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
You did not answer my question Mark: what is the role of TC39,
Le 08/05/2013 16:46, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 8 May 2013 17:41, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 8, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
What about your triangle argument?
There is another way:
let obj = Object.setPrototypeOf({x:0, y:0}, pointProto};
Let's keep
Le 08/05/2013 08:01, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 8 May 2013 07:10, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be gained by
moving the property alone to Annex B? If nothing, then I think this
consistency should win.
JavaScript implementations in new or existing eco systems that are not
On 5/8/2013 9:00 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 08/05/2013 16:46, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
Isn't Object.create the proper alternative to both {__proto__: } and
triangle for objects? What has setPrototypeOf got to do with it? (And
why is that on the table all of a sudden?)
Object.create only
On 8 May 2013 18:06, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 08/05/2013 08:01, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 8 May 2013 07:10, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be gained by
moving the property alone to Annex B? If nothing, then I think this
consistency should win.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
I think one point that's being hinted at, but not explicitly called out,
is the confusing nature of `import foo` in the proposed scheme. Notably,
it shares this confusion with AMD, but not with Node.js.
The
I proposed a flag for a reusable setter they told me they have no interest
to fragment the language behind these kind of flags ...
To all: a new syntax is also more suitable for shims/polyfills, something
broken/partial implementation of __proto__.set descriptor cannot replace
so, as direction,
From: Jason Orendorff [jason.orendo...@gmail.com]
Here's what you would do under the proposal:
```js
// import a module in the same package/project
import ./controllers as controllers;
// import some other package
import backbone as backbone;
```
The surface syntax deliberately follows
On May 8, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 8 May 2013 17:41, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 8, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
What about your triangle argument?
There is another way:
let obj = Object.setPrototypeOf({x:0, y:0}, pointProto};
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: Jason Orendorff [jason.orendo...@gmail.com]
Here's what you would do under the proposal:
```js
// import a module in the same package/project
import ./controllers as controllers;
// import some other
From: sam...@gmail.com [sam...@gmail.com] on behalf of Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
[sa...@ccs.neu.edu]
How is this in disagreement with what Jason said? His point is that if
you're in the module a/b/c, ./controllers refers to a/b/controllers,
and backbone refers to backbone.
Ah, I see, there are
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: sam...@gmail.com [sam...@gmail.com] on behalf of Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
[sa...@ccs.neu.edu]
How is this in disagreement with what Jason said? His point is that if
you're in the module a/b/c,
Hello,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question - please let me know
if not!
I am trying to understand the specification of for-in, both for ES5 and
for ES6, and in particular the interaction between shadowing and adding
or deleting properties. Here are the parts of the ES5 spec and
From: sam...@gmail.com [sam...@gmail.com] on behalf of Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
[sa...@ccs.neu.edu]
In contrast, usually you want to be using that global version of backbone,
not something specific to your library. Of course, you can bundle backbone,
and refer to it with ./backbone if that's
No, we're not trying to prescribe a specific structure.
There's a default place to fetch files from, because there has to be
_some_ default. However, I expect that most developers will do one of
the following (Jason listed these options earlier):
1. Load a script tag with `module backbone { ...
From: sam...@gmail.com [sam...@gmail.com] on behalf of Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
[sa...@ccs.neu.edu]
There's a default place to fetch files from, because there has to be _some_
default.
Why?
This is the core of my problem with AMD, at least as I have used it in the real
world with RequireJS. You
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
How is this in disagreement with what Jason said? His point is that
if you're in the module a/b/c, ./controllers refers to
a/b/controllers, and backbone refers to backbone. Once you have
a module name, there's a
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: sam...@gmail.com [sam...@gmail.com] on behalf of Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
[sa...@ccs.neu.edu]
There's a default place to fetch files from, because there has to be _some_
default.
Why?
This is the core
From: James Burke [jrbu...@gmail.com]
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
This is the core of my problem with AMD, at least as I have used it in the
real world with RequireJS. You have no idea what `require(string)`
means---is `string` a
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: James Burke [jrbu...@gmail.com]
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
This is the core of my problem with AMD, at least as I have used it in the
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kevin Smith zenpars...@gmail.com wrote:
- Other languages are generally free to define their own semantics for
referencing external things, whereas JavaScript (as embedded in the
browser) already has such semantics in-place. Adopting different semantics
will
You're saying we have no choice but to make users hard-code locations into
every import site, because HTML. I disagree.
That is not my position. My position has always been that if you want
logical names, then a reasonable way to do that is via a scheme:
import $ from package:jquery;
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jason Orendorff
jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
Set aside absolute-url imports. Suppose we just dropped them. Would you
still think that module names are URLs? If so, do you think
in the Example 1 you simply loop over all keys in the chain, included the x
inherited from b.
The fact you shadow that is irrelevant, it was there in any case.
The fact you get 1 in the log is because you access the shadowed property
through a[i] so expected result.
You are doing a for/in, not a
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 8 May 2013 18:06, David Bruantbruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 08/05/2013 08:01, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 8 May 2013 07:10, Mark Millererig...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be gained by
moving the property alone to Annex B? If nothing, then I think this
That is not my position. My position has always been that if you want
logical names, then a reasonable way to do that is via a scheme:
import $ from package:jquery;
A possible alternative would be to switch the defaults
___
es-discuss mailing
Having Object.setPrototypeOf to match Object.getPrototypeOf is nice,
better for proxies (with necessary changes to them), and polyfillable.
Take my last note as an attitude adjustment, though. So long as
__proto__ endures, its brevity and legacy uses will tend to propagate
its use into the
[sorry if you saw an earlier empty message - unknown keycombo!-(]
That is not my position. My position has always been that if you want
logical names, then a reasonable way to do that is via a scheme:
import $ from package:jquery;
A possible alternative might be to switch defaults, using
Call me crazy but I can picture a world where you have to explicitly shim
in __proto__ (using Object.setPrototypeOf) if you really need it. Not
anytime soon, sure, but maybe one day. Maybe...
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Having Object.setPrototypeOf
On 05/08/2013 01:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
1. Dumping stuff into Annex B to show disdain. This is pride, bad for the
soul.
Pride doesn't seem like a reason one way or the other, to me. The reason
would be to cordon off functionality whose mis-performance developers will not
intuitively
Dean Landolt wrote:
Call me crazy but I can picture a world where you have to explicitly
shim in __proto__ (using Object.setPrototypeOf) if you really need it.
Not anytime soon, sure, but maybe one day. Maybe...
Who can say? It's fruitless to speculate idly. Want to bet?
But aside from
Jeff Walden wrote:
On 05/08/2013 01:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
1. Dumping stuff into Annex B to show disdain. This is pride, bad for the soul.
Pride doesn't seem like a reason one way or the other, to me.
Good.
The reason would be to cordon off functionality whose mis-performance
Why
On 05/08/2013 04:10 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Why would Object.setPrototypeOf have any better perf?
It wouldn't.
developers will not intuitively understand, so that they're less likely to
use it. Some will, even still, perhaps just out of obstinacy (pride,
I think you missed that that
it took 8 years to teach JS developers **not** to pollute Object.prototype,
I understand your concern and I understand with the possibility to drop
enumerability that could (and will) be proposed by someone.
At the same time it will be a stubborn move aim to fix some deprecated,
old, not
43 matches
Mail list logo
