I've been reading recently the module discussions and one particular concept
troubled me.
I don't understand the motivation behind an on-the-fly 'translate' loader hook
that would compile CoffeeScript into JavaScript.
Would every browser have to include a CoffeeScript compiler? Which version?
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:02 AM, jbo...@openmv.com jbo...@openmv.com wrote:
I’ve been reading recently the module discussions and one particular concept
troubled me.
I don’t understand the motivation behind an on-the-fly ‘translate’ loader
hook that would compile CoffeeScript into JavaScript.
This is a misunderstanding of the `translate` hook in particular, and
the concept of hooks in the loader in general. The loader hooks are
there for programmers to configure and change the default behavior of
the browser. For example, you could modify the standard loader, or
create a new loader,
On 6/17/2013 6:30 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/17/2013 4:33 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
Firefox added Array.prototype.values() and immediately ran into
compatibility issues.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=883914
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=881782
Both bug
can you try to hot-fix that via `with(values.values=values)` ?
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Brandon Benvie bben...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 6/17/2013 6:30 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/17/2013 4:33 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
Firefox added Array.prototype.values() and immediately ran into
On 6/18/2013 3:02 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can you try to hot-fix that via `with(values.values=values)` ?
That probably works, but it matters little since the hazard is with the
existing installed base of sites that use this which would need to be
updated. I can't imagine standardizing
The logging solution proposed is not polyfillable with today's tools, at least
not when logging to the browser console.
The idea would be that rejection reasons are logged when nobody has handled
them, but then un-logged when they are handled. Since there is no
`console.unlog`, you see our
Le 18/06/2013 23:49, Chad Austin a écrit :
Hi all,
Hoping to proactively polyfill likely parts of upcoming standards, I
am adding an implementation of DOM promises to IMVU's base JavaScript
library.
Why was done() removed from the draft spec? Rename Futures per TC39
discussion. Drop
As Domenic mentions, there will be no place for done in our bright
promise debugger future.
It will however be necessary for promise users to keep on ending their
chains with done() until promise debuggers are ubiquitously available.
This is a simple problem. If you are writing code that targets
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Brandon Benvie bben...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 6/18/2013 3:02 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can you try to hot-fix that via `with(values.values=values)` ?
That probably works, but it matters little since the hazard is with the
existing installed base of sites
On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/18/2013 3:02 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can you try to hot-fix that via `with(values.values=values)` ?
That probably works, but it matters little since the hazard is with the
existing installed base of sites that use this which
I blame 'with'. So, ex-Borland people at Netscape. And so, ultimately,
myself.
/be
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/18/2013 3:02 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
can you try to hot-fix that via `with(values.values=values)` ?
That probably works,
I am of the opinion that program errors should fail loudly by default,
which the current proposal does not support.
To this end, in my own promise implementation I use a form of fail soon,
like so:
Define a promise tree. As a base case we have a promise created with the
Promise constructor.
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On
Behalf Of Kevin Smith
To this end, in my own promise implementation I use a form of fail soon,
like so:
It sounds like this does not support handling rejections in an event loop turn
after they are generated,
From: Mark S. Miller [mailto:erig...@google.com]
I don't understand this. I am onboard with
`console.unhandledRejection`/`console.rejectionHandled` and all that for
better logging, and with using WeakRef notification to improve the logging
yet further. But I don't see how any of this can
cc es-discuss
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.orgwrote:
two chair hats on
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com
wrote:
I think this is the standard that ECMA wants to publish.
As you know from our earlier off-list
From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
This is close, but not quite right. The rule is that any unbound variables
in modules are errors. The variables may be bound by import declarations, or
by lexical bindings such as `var` or `let`, or by bindings on the global
object, or by top-level `let`
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
cc es-discuss
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.orgwrote:
two chair hats on
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com
wrote:
I think this is the
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Paul, I'm missing all the context, but from this out of context
fragment, your response seems inappropriate. A statement like Doug's I
think this is the standard that ECMA wants to publish sounds to me like
speculation
I've often looked at Promise#then() as sugar over Promise#done() for something
like:
```js
Promise.prototype.then = function(resolve, reject) {
return new Promise(resolver = {
this.done(
value = {
try {
resolver.resolve(resolve ? resolve(value) : value);
}
From: Mark S. Miller [mailto:erig...@google.com]
What do you think I'm getting at? ;)
Heh. In short, non-browser environments.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
you should, but only partially! I mean, Ext.js still relying into
`with(whatever)` behavior is as guilty as any decision made in last 5 years
... no matter the subject ...
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
I blame 'with'. So, ex-Borland people at
22 matches
Mail list logo
