I'm still trying to make sense of the conflicting module naming design
goals and usage consequences.
You seem to believe otherwise, but I think you still need to explain
how any of the above cases is not sufficiently (or even superiorly)
supported by lexical modules + the loader API.
The most
for what it matters, redefine.js already does exactly that.
( https://github.com/WebReflection/redefine#classes )
var Foo = redefine.Class({
extend: Bar,
mixin: [F, object, F2.prototype, Class3]
});
and yes, it makes perfect sense, specially for mixins such EventEmitter and
similar
my 2
Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
André Bargull wrote:
No one wants arguments in arrows.
The question is, should an outer arguments binding be
visible? I think
Just confirming: SpiderMonkey prototypes ES6 arrow function syntax
without any arguments binding in the arrow body expression or body block:
js f = (x) = arguments[0]
(x) = arguments[0]
js f(42)
js g = (x) = { return arguments[0]; }
(x) = { return arguments[0]; }
js g(43)
js arguments[0]
js
I've tried to find something like ECMA constitution or how things work
here page in what I think is the official ECMA website:
http://www.ecma-international.org/
I could not find what I am looking for, which is an answer to this question:
Does TC39 make decisions based on majority or unanimity?
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I've tried to find something like ECMA constitution or how things
work here page in what I think is the official ECMA website:
http://www.ecma-international.org/
I could not find what I am looking for, which is an answer to this
question:
Does TC39 make decisions
Thanks for the answer Brendan.
Without names, since apparently nothing final has been decided yet, it
happened recently that everyone agreed here but one single TC39 member
didn't manage to participate that thread so, while everyone else thought it
was a thumbs up agreement, this person that
When it comes time for TC39 to approve the final spec version of ES6 it is
likely that each participant will be able to point at something in the spec.
that they would prefer was different. But they will also agree that approving
that version is the best overall course of action.
This seems more than reasonable so, for what I understand, is majority as
long as there's no **concrete** harm/problem/worst damage doing that way
that could make someone really disappointed.
Aka: consensus
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
When it
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
This seems more than reasonable so, for what I understand, is majority
No.
Majority means 51% wants it, 49% doesn't (simple majority).
Consensus means general agreement, and if someone demurs on certain
things, they are holding fire and *not* forming a dissenting
10 matches
Mail list logo
