On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
All of these are easy to do if this is just a Map (or has Map on its
prototype chain), but with a custom [[MapData]] whose behavior is
defined by my spec.
Would another way to think about this be as a regular
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
All of these are easy to do if this is just a Map (or has Map on its
prototype chain), but with a custom [[MapData]] whose behavior is
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
All of these are easy to do if this is just a Map (or has
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
If we ignore the toString() and other validation, yes. But note that
setting
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
Your example is not a restatement of your question.
Yes, the environment can
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
Is it possible for the environment to change the Map during the turn?
IOW, is this always true?
m.set(x, 1);
assert(m.get(x) === 1);
Kevin Smith wrote:
Please! There is no magic pixie dust whereby the Internet solves
the configuration problem for us.
No pixie dust was involved - just vision. If you would like to define
exactly what you mean by configuration problem, I would be happy to
get specific.
Upthread,
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can I also suggest to analyze, if there's still any doubt left on a
method VS a property yet, this piece of code if not highlighted before?
I do not understand what you mean here.
Behavior in Safari and FirefoxNightly (V8 still by its own here)
```
var obj =
2013/5/20 Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
I believe having a counterpart in the Object, following a natural
expectation where for a get you've got a set, is just fine but surely
Reflect should have its own reflection power a part.
Yeah, given the existence of
On 20 May 2013 14:15, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/26 Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
I'm not sure if your description of E is accurate -- I'd find that
surprising. It _is_ a perfectly sensible design to have transparent
futures that you can just use in place of the
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Ok, that's what I thought was going on. We can make some other
function calls which might mutate the Map, just as with any other Map
that we get from someone else. In that case, my response to Anne
stands -- why is
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
Ok, that's what I thought was going on. We can make some other
function calls which might mutate the Map, just as with any other Map
that
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
No, you don't need to do anything differently. Conceptually, there
are three things you need:
1. When the Map is created, before it's handed to the program, some
items are added.
2. Some platform operations also
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
No, you don't need to do anything differently. Conceptually, there
are three things you need:
1. When the Map is created, before it's
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
If the plan is to do that, then you should_not_ use Map. That isn't a Map.
But that doesn't need to be a proxy, either. It's something with a
signature that could be the same as Map's, but with different semantics.
I sense people have trouble drawing the line on
Le 21/05/2013 04:06, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
For the CSS Variables spec I need to define an object with arbitrary
string keys, with the initial set determined by the custom properties
set in the style rule, and on modification I need to coerce the
provided key to a string, and then go mutate
Hi,
David Bruant wrote:
Le 21/05/2013 04:06, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
(One way to do this today is to subclass Map and provide my own
get/set/etc. functions, but I need to override a potentially-open set
(anything that doesn't directly lean on my overridden functions), and
it doesn't
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with
style rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in
the style rule, the proxy is just a façade with a bit of
validation/coercion logic). That's the sort of use case they've been
introduced
Le 21/05/2013 13:19, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with
style rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in
the style rule, the proxy is just a façade with a bit of
validation/coercion logic). That's the
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So Tab: why do you want to abuse Map instead of make a custom class?
As we tried to explain before, the believe is that a lot of Map
generics will work directly on this Map-like object, similar to how we
want Array methods
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Of course, coercing key type makes the API not Map. So if the
bi-directionality is important, this would be a custom Map-like class.
I guess I also do not really get this. Sure JavaScript does not have a
type system
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Of course, coercing key type makes the API not Map. So if the
bi-directionality is important, this would be a custom Map-like class.
I guess I
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So Tab: why do you want to abuse Map instead of make a custom class?
As we tried to explain before, the believe is that a lot of Map
generics will work directly on this Map-like object, similar
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can I also suggest to analyze, if there's still any doubt left on a
method VS a property yet, this piece of code if not highlighted before?
I do not understand what you mean here.
I mean
for always work I meant as long as the object is not sealed/frozen as
discussed a while ago
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can I also
On 5/21/2013 9:43 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can I also suggest to analyze, if there's still any doubt left
on a method VS a property yet, this
consider this then, same thing JSON is doing now in FF and Safari
```
var obj = Object.defineProperty({}, '__proto__', {
enumerable: true,
writable: true,
configurable: true,
value: []
});
console.log(obj instanceof Array); // false
obj.__proto__ = Array.prototype;
console.log(obj
No, what you provided was a demonstration where you complained about
a registry for one system, and assumed it for the other. This is just
bad-faith argumentation.
First, I've shown that a package manager is necessary for non-trivial
module graphs, and therefore we should not admit claims
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
This description (arbitrary string keys, bidirectional link with style
rule) suggests that you want a proxy (canonical values are in the style
rule, the proxy is just a façade with a bit of
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Of course, coercing key type makes the API not Map. So if the
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:07 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
David Bruant wrote:
Le 21/05/2013 04:06, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
(One way to do this today is to subclass Map and provide my own
get/set/etc. functions, but I need to override a potentially-open set
(anything that
What if the default Map prototype had a configurable but non-writable data
property for a @@coerceKey symbol that pointed to a default coercion function.
You could subclass Map and provide your own @@coerceKey implementation. Then
Map.prototype.set.call() would be forced to run the custom
33 matches
Mail list logo
