The minutes from the November 29, 2012 meeting
http://esdiscuss.org/notes/2012-11-29 say:
Conclusion/Resolution
Add iterator protocol to arguments object (should exist on all things.
Array.from:
1. Iterator protocol
2. Array-Like
for-of spread:
1. Iterator protocol
-j
The internationalization working group is planning to support grapheme clusters
through its text segmentation API - the strawman:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=globalization:text_segmentation
Note that Unicode Standard Annex #29 allows for tailored (language sensitive)
grapheme
On Oct 24, 2013, at 7:38 , Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
Imagine you’re writing a JavaScript library that escapes a given string as
an HTML character reference, or as a CSS identifier, or anything else. In
On Oct 25, 2013, at 18:35 , Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
UTF-16 is designed so that you can search based on code units
alone, without computing boundaries. RegExp searches fall in this
category.
Not if the RegExp is case insensitive, or uses a character class, or ., or a
* Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
On Oct 25, 2013, at 18:35 , Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
UTF-16 is designed so that you can search based on code units
alone, without computing boundaries. RegExp searches fall in this
category.
Not if the RegExp is case insensitive, or uses a
± Because using a ZIP file is a bad practice we certainly should not
± allow. As stated before, it will make the website slow [...]
±
± It seems what you're saying is that there are already superior ways to bundle
± JS modules and we don't need W3C to define another one.
± Perhaps—but this
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2013, at 18:35 , Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
UTF-16 is designed so that you can search based on code units
alone, without computing boundaries. RegExp searches fall in
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM, François REMY
francois.remy@outlook.com wrote:
Bundling in general is not going to be a valid approach for any purpose
related to efficiency soon (except maybe archive-level compression where
grouping similar files may improve compression rate slightly).
Bonjour à tous,
`Knowing that every function is an object, I am surprised that the
Object.create() method doesn't really allow cloning function.
So I made an implementation as follows:
`Object.create = (function () {
'use strict';
var slice,
curry,
On 10/26/2013 7:44 AM, Michaël Rouges wrote:
Knowing that every function is an object, I am surprised that the
Object.create() method doesn't really allow cloning function.
Object.create creates Objects. You run into the same limitation when
trying to create Arrays with Object.create (doesn't
* Claude Pache wrote:
You might know that the following ES expressions are broken:
text.charAt(0) // get the first character of the text
text.length 100 ? text.substring(0,100) + '...' : text // cut the
text after 100 characters
The reason is *not* because ES works with UTF-16
Le 26/10/2013 15:44, Michaël Rouges a écrit :
Bonjour à tous,
Bonjour,
`Knowing that every function is an object, I am surprised that the
Object.create() method doesn't really allow cloning function.
I don't follow the logic of this sentence.
In any case, the purpose of Object.create is to
Before getting into the exact situation with `Object.create` and functions, the
first thing to understand is that `Object.create(proto)` creates an object with
prototype of `proto`. As others have said, this is different from cloning.
Here's a simple example which should show the differences
Thank you for your answers.
Sorry for my misnomer, I meant to copy a function, not to clone a
function.
In fact, it's been a while I do the technical research around the JavaScript
, and this research has led me to realize that there is no feature to simply
copy a function (or class) , including
It's really needed to make js syntax more complex in order to implement
generators?
It's function* really needed?
can you just expose Generator as a core function?
can yield be a function-call-like-construct instead of a new language
construction?
function fibonacci() {
let [prev, curr] = [0,
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Lucio Tato luciot...@gmail.com wrote:
It's really needed to make js syntax more complex in order to implement
generators?
It's function* really needed?
Yes, because `yield` is only reserved in strict mode code, which means this
is valid today:
function g()
Is it possible to not put HTTP in the middle of your thoughts?
Why is **non HTTP** bundling a no go?
Don't you donwload a single blob to install chrome and then eventually have
incremental updates?
Why that single blob at the beginning should not be possible only in JS
since every other
I can’t help but repeat, what you describe is called an app package format.
Windows 8 has one, Chrome has one, Firefox OS has one; others may have one,
too. There are discussions about a standardized app package format going on,
but they are not happening on es-discuss.
Why do you think this
Apologies, I just answered what Ilya answered but I'd like to see this
discussion ... where is this happening? Thanks a lot and send even off
thread if you can.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, François REMY
francois.remy@outlook.com wrote:
I can’t help but repeat, what you describe is
I think it was once discussed at public-weba...@w3.org.
→ http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PER-widgets-20120925/#zip-archive
At some point there was also a community group but I’m not sure it’s still
active; it published some interesting format comparisons:
→
Rick: I understand. But it is always a trade-off.
If the reason to introduce a new construct is because there may already be
code that defines a function called `yield`, it seems to me as a bad
trade-off. (advantages vs disadvantages)
In your example...
function yield() {... - will raise a
Another reason: you can’t have empty generators without marking them in some
manner.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Lucio Tato luciot...@gmail.com wrote:
It's really needed to make js syntax more complex in order to implement
generators?
It's function* really needed?
--
Dr. Axel
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Lucio Tato luciot...@gmail.com wrote:
yield*(curr);
Note that, in difference to `function* foo`, that is valid ES5. In fact, I
bet there is real code along the lines of `yield*(time - offset)` out there.
___
Yup.
Look (Licio), we've been over this many times, recorded here in
es-discuss (directly in posts and in TC39 meeting notes). We are not
adding generator syntax lightly. It is necessary to preserve backward
compatibility.
/be
Till Schneidereit mailto:t...@tillschneidereit.net
October 26,
I've seen posts asking for optional strong typing (often relating to
typescript), but not many asking for data types. I think since the process
takes a while it would be a good idea to consider adding extra data types on
top of the already existing dynamic ones. I'll keep each comment short
On Oct 26, 2013, at 5:39 , Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
On Oct 25, 2013, at 18:35 , Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
UTF-16 is designed so that you can search based on code units
alone, without computing boundaries. RegExp searches
On Oct 26, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Lucio Tato luciot...@gmail.com wrote:
Rick: I understand. But it is always a trade-off.
If the reason to introduce a new construct is because there may already be
code that defines a function called `yield`, it seems to me as a bad
trade-off. (advantages vs
On Oct 26, 2013, at 6:58 , Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Norbert Lindenberg
ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2013, at 18:35 , Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
UTF-16 is designed so that you can
Sorry for the top post, but I recommend reading this:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:value_types
Rick
On Saturday, October 26, 2013, Brandon Andrews wrote:
I've seen posts asking for optional strong typing (often relating to
typescript), but not many asking for data types. I
Also http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp/5, presented in convenient
video form at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXIkTrq3Rgg.
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Rick
Waldron
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 00:06
To: Brandon Andrews
Cc:
30 matches
Mail list logo
