Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are deprecated.
The correct syntax is `new Proxy(target, handler)`
In my original direct proxies proposal, the `new` was optional, so that
`var p = Proxy(target, handler)` works equally well (cf.
ES6 fixes `String.fromCharCode` by introducing `String.fromCodePoint`.
Similarly, `String.prototype.charCodeAt` is fixed by
`String.prototype.codePointAt`.
Should there be a method that is like `String.prototype.charAt` except it deals
with astral Unicode symbols wherever possible?
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Angus
Croll
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6 standard
It's not quite fleshed out yet, but the constructor function is at least there:
Le 18/10/2013 07:19, Angus Croll a écrit :
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6
standard
The latest official news is in the May 2013 TC39 notes:
https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-05/may-21.md#44-proxies
The final design of proxies is the
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
ES6 fixes `String.fromCharCode` by introducing `String.fromCodePoint`.
Similarly, `String.prototype.charCodeAt` is fixed by
`String.prototype.codePointAt`.
Should there be a method that is like `String.prototype.charAt`
On 18 Oct 2013, at 09:21, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea is good, but the name may be confusing with regard to
Symbols (maybe not?)
Yeah, I thought about that, but couldn’t figure out a better name. “Glyph” or
“Grapheme” wouldn’t be accurate. Any suggestions?
Great info thanks (and Tom and Domenic)
A note on MDN confirming that direct proxy adhered to the new spec (and a
similar one on old proxy saying it didn't) would probably be immensely helpful
to other people who had the same question I had.
Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all
From: es-discuss [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf of Angus Croll
[anguscr...@gmail.com
Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all wiki-harmony docs that no
longer meet the standard would save a lot of wasted hours
I know Rick has already made strides in that direction via
I can confirm:
npm install harmony-reflect
node --harmony
require('harmony-reflect')
and I'm good to go with ES6 proxy syntax
thanks all!
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote:
Great info thanks (and Tom and Domenic)
A note on MDN
I also noticed the naming similarity to ES6 `Symbol`s.
I've seen people fill `String.prototype.getFullChar` before and similarly
things like `String.prototype.fromFullCharCode` for dealing with surrogates
before. I like `String.prototype.signAt` but I haven't seen it used before.
I'm eager to
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: es-discuss [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf of Angus
Croll [anguscr...@gmail.com
Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all wiki-harmony docs that
no longer meet the standard would
Here’s my proposal. Feedback welcome, as well as suggestions for a better name
(if any).
## String.prototype.symbolAt(pos)
NOTE: Returns a single-element String containing the code point at element
position `pos` in the String `value` resulting from converting the `this`
object to a String.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 09:21, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea is good, but the name may be confusing with regard to
Symbols (maybe not?)
Yeah, I thought about that, but couldn’t figure out a
No worries guys - thanks for adding the 'obsolete' note
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: es-discuss [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on
I can't remember the conclusion of the earlier thread on this topic.
The question was about how implicit method calls should interact with
proxies in places (like
[ToPrimitive](http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-toprimitive))
where the spec first checks that the desired
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote:
No worries guys - thanks for adding the 'obsolete' note
Don't hesitate to ask for clarification on this list—especially if you
think it will save you time :)
Rick
___
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
Here’s my proposal. Feedback welcome, as well as suggestions for a better
name (if any).
## String.prototype.symbolAt(pos)
Here goes...
String.prototype.elementAt?
Rick
___
Doesn't Unicode have some name for visual representation of a code point?
Maybe it's symbol?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
Similarly, `String.prototype.charCodeAt` is fixed by
`String.prototype.codePointAt`.
When you phrase it like that, I see another problem with
codePointAt(). You can't just replace existing usage of charCodeAt()
with
On 18 Oct 2013, at 10:48, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
Similarly, `String.prototype.charCodeAt` is fixed by
`String.prototype.codePointAt`.
When you phrase it like that, I see another problem with
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 10:25, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
String.prototype.elementAt?
This may be confusing too, since the spec refers to `elements` as code
units, not code points.
Yes, slight mis-reading
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 10:48, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
When you phrase it like that, I see another problem with
codePointAt(). You can't just replace existing usage of charCodeAt()
with codePointAt() as that
/ I disagree. In those situations you should just iterate over the string
using `for...of`.
/
That seems to iterate over code units as far as I can tell.
for (var x of ?)
print(x.charCodeAt(0))
invokes print() twice in Gecko.
SpiderMonkey does not implement the (yet to be) spec'ed
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using require('harmony-reflect')
var t = {a:3, c:4};
var p = Proxy(
t,
{
get: function() {},
delete: function(t,x) {
console.log('deleting');
delete t.a;
}
}
);
delete p.c
p; //{a:3}
t; //{a:3}
the console.log is not called
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using require('harmony-reflect')
var t = {a:3, c:4};
var p = Proxy(
t,
{
get: function() {},
delete: function(t,x) {
console.log('deleting');
delete t.a;
}
}
);
delete p.c
p; //{a:3}
t; //{a:3}
the console.log is not
On Oct 18, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
ES6 fixes `String.fromCharCode` by introducing `String.fromCodePoint`.
Similarly, `String.prototype.charCodeAt` is fixed by
`String.prototype.codePointAt`.
On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 10:48, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
When you phrase it like that, I see another problem with
codePointAt(). You can't just replace
+1 for the simplified `at(symbolIndex)`
I would expect '팆'.at(1) to fail same way 'a'.charAt(1) or
'a'.charCodeAt(1) would.
I would expect '팆'.at(symbolIndex) to behave as `length` does based on
unique symbol (unicode extra) so that everyone, except RAM and CPU, will
have life easier with
the size of that unicode string is 1 ... meaning the **virtual** size for
human eyes
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for the simplified `at(symbolIndex)`
I would expect '팆'.at(1) to fail same way 'a'.charAt(1) or
'a'.charCodeAt(1)
if this is true then .at(symbolIndex) should be a no-brain ?
```
var virtualLength = 0;
for (var x of ) {
virtualLength++;
}
// equivalent of
for(var i = 0; i virtualLength; i++) {
.at(i);
}
```
Am I missing something ?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
thanks André that works!
(I was going by
https://github.com/tvcutsem/harmony-reflect/blob/master/doc/traps.md which
says 'delete')
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.eduwrote:
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using
On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are deprecated.
The correct syntax is `new Proxy(target, handler)`
In my original direct proxies proposal, the `new` was optional, so that `var
p = Proxy(target, handler)` works equally well (cf.
On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
+1 for the simplified `at(symbolIndex)`
I would expect '팆'.at(1) to fail same way 'a'.charAt(1) or 'a'.charCodeAt(1)
would.
They are comparable, as the 'a' example are index out of bounds errors. We
only use code unit indices with
On Oct 18, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
I can't remember the conclusion of the earlier thread on this topic.
The question was about how implicit method calls should interact with
proxies in places (like
On 10/18/2013 11:01 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
What your question does help me be more decisive on: We should not be in a rush
to add an Invoke, InvokeFunction, or any new traps not needed for membranes,
and not subject to a long history of examination. Invoke at least, as a derived
trap,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Brandon Benvie bben...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 10/18/2013 11:01 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
What your question does help me be more decisive on: We should not be in a
rush to add an Invoke, InvokeFunction, or any new traps not needed for
membranes, and not
On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 10/18/2013 11:01 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
What your question does help me be more decisive on: We should not be in a
rush to add an Invoke, InvokeFunction, or any new traps not needed for
membranes, and not subject to a long
In ES5 all assignments are evaluated following this formula:
get a reference via evaluating LHSget a value through evaluating RHSassign the
value to the reference
However in the current draft, destructuring assignment are evaluated in another
order which is (as seen in section 12.13.3)
get a
Yes, this is intentional and goes all the way back to ES4's original
destructuring proposal, based on array-pattern destructuring implemented
in Opera's Futhark engine. See
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:destructuring_assignment#contrast_to_normal_assignment
We want
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
for (var x of )
print(x.charCodeAt(0))
invokes print() twice in Gecko.
No that's not correct, the @@iterator method of String.prototype is supposed
to returns an interator the iterates code points and
On Friday, October 18, 2013, Angus Croll wrote:
thanks André that works!
(I was going by
https://github.com/tvcutsem/harmony-reflect/blob/master/doc/traps.mdwhich
says 'delete')
Cc Tom Van Cutsem to make sure he sees this.
Rick
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM, André
On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:24 PM, BelleveInvis wrote:
...this causes an inconsistency that in expression `[f().x] = [g()]`, g is
called BEFORE f. That is weird, and differ from `f().x = g()` where g is
called after f.
but consider
[f().x, h().y] = g(); //assume g() evaluates to an
fair enough, that was my point about
except for RAM and CPU, life is going to be easier for devs
so my counter-question would be: is there any way to do that in core so
that we can “”.split() it so that we can have an ArrayLike that with
[1] gives back the single “” and not the whole thing
On 18 Oct 2013, at 11:05, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
I disagree. In those situations you should just iterate over the string
using `for…of`.
That seems to iterate over code units as far as I can tell.
On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
fair enough, that was my point about
except for RAM and CPU, life is going to be easier for devs
so my counter-question would be: is there any way to do that in core so that
we can “”.split() it so that we can have an ArrayLike
Please ignore my previous email; it has been answered already. (It was a draft
I wrote up this morning before I lost my internet connection.)
On 18 Oct 2013, at 11:57, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Given that we have charAt, charCodeAt and codePointAt, I think the most
On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:12, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
so my counter-question would be: is there any way to do that in core so that
we can “”.split() it so that we can have an ArrayLike that with [1] gives
back the single “” and not the whole thing ?
This brings
If I understand Allen answer looks like `Array.from(“”).length` would
do, being 3, and making the operation straight forward?
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:12, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
so
At http://flippinawesome.org/2013/10/14/a-simple-visual-model-for-promises/.
I enjoyed it.
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Given that you can only use the proposed String.prototype.at() properly for
indexes 0 if you know the index of a non-BMP character or lead surrogate
by some other means, or if you will test the return value for a trailing
surrogate, is it really an advantage over using codePointAt /
On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Array.from( '팆팆팆'))[1]
maybe even better:
Uint32Array.from( '팆팆팆'))[1]
Allen
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Array.from( '팆팆팆'))[1]
maybe even better:
Uint32Array.from( '팆팆팆'))[1]
err...maybe not if you want a string value:
String.fromCodePoint(Uint32Array.from( '팆팆팆')[1])
On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
/
// On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
//
// Array.from( '???'))[1]
//
// maybe even better:
//
// Uint32Array.from( '???'))[1]
/
err...maybe not if you want a string value:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 17:51, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
Given that you can only use the proposed String.prototype.at() properly for
indexes 0 if you know the index of a non-BMP character or lead surrogate by
some other means, or if you will test the return value for a trailing
On 19 Oct 2013, at 01:12, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
`String.prototype.codePointAt` or `String.prototype.at` come in handy in case
you only need to get the first code point or symbol in a string, for example.
Are they useful for anything else, though? For example, if I wanted to get
55 matches
Mail list logo
