Sure, so Allen asked me a real case to show, and I've done it. Now you
please show me a real case when you pass a revival function to `JSON.parse`
that is from another realm, explaining why, as I've done for mine, thanks.
Best Regards
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Oliver Hunt
also, your reviver would receive objects from the realm I am checking with
that code ... so your reviver will receive object from the **expected**
realm ... just to clarify, for future readers.
Still all ears listening to that case I've never, honestly, considered!
Thanks
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
also, your reviver would receive objects from the realm I am checking with
that code ... so your reviver will receive object from the **expected** realm
... just to clarify, for future readers.
I don’t
Finalized spec or finalized implementations?
A lot of things are already being implemented (with varying levels of
conformance, of course) in latest versions of engines (from browsers to
node) — http://kangax.github.io/es5-compat-table/es6/
--
kangax
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Nathan
Surely this can be dealt with by extending the CSP policy to allow script
domains which are able to call System.define. Surely it is an equivalent
permission to being able to load script from the domain anyway, when it is
restricted to running in the outer scope only?
On 31 October 2013 16:10,
Finalized spec or finalized implementations?
A lot of things are already being implemented (with varying levels of
conformance, of course) in latest versions of engines (from browsers to
node) — http://kangax.github.io/es5-compat-table/es6/
--
kangax
Yes, thanks, I'm aware of
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Nathan Wall nathan.w...@live.com wrote:
Hey guys, I really think you're all doing an awesome job with the
development of the future of the language, especially all the work Allen's
putting into the drafts. I'm really dying to start using some of these
I think I must be missing something?
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Guy Bedford guybedf...@googlemail.comwrote:
Surely this can be dealt with by extending the CSP policy to allow script
domains which are able to call System.define.
How is that different to extending the CSP policy to allow
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
import * from stickers;
...
y = r * Math.sin(a);
...
It is unclear whether `Math` refers to the global Math
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
Make sense but I'm not sure it is needed/desired.
It's very useful for convenience libraries, quick refactorings, etc.
In other languages, I use it a lot.
Where is this documented?
It's very briefly described in
I suppose I am hypothesising that it might be possible to limit the
invocation to the outer scope only in some CSP mode.
// allowed:
System.define(['some-module'], ['export var q = p;']);
// not allowed:
(function() {
System.define(['some-module'], ['export var q = p;']);
})();
In this way,
On Nov 1, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Nathan Wall nathan.w...@live.com wrote:
Hey guys, I really think you're all doing an awesome job with the development
of the future of the language, especially all the work Allen's putting into
the drafts.
Thanks Rick,
From my reading of that schedule we could hope to have ES6 features
like modules and classes ready for use in production code (via
something like traceur) by Q1 next year?
The June/July/Dec 2014 dates are simply dot the i's and cross the t's
milestones, standardisation bureaucracy?
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
There is still plenty of work to do to reach the Ecma standard stage in Dec
2014, but from a feature perspective ES6 should be done within the next 3
months.
Excellent news, thanks for the summary.
I have no idea who is doing that and why but yes, in that case I would
never have used instanceof so my example is still valid as use case itself.
Cheers
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
[isSpecialString]() {return isSpecialString in this};
So this is basically what we have for DOM objects right now. And what
we're asking for is having this elevated to language-supported
construct. Be it in the form
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Jeff Morrison lbljef...@gmail.com wrote:
Throwing this out there while I stew on the pros/cons of it (so others can
as well):
I wonder how terrible it would be to have this API define module bodies in
terms of a passed function that, say, accepted and/or
On Nov 1, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
[isSpecialString]() {return isSpecialString in this};
So this is basically what we have for DOM objects right now. And what
we're asking for is having this
If we limit `module 'm' { ... }` to Script then we still keep the flat
module hierarchy.
On Nov 1, 2013 2:32 PM, James Burke jrbu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Jeff Morrison lbljef...@gmail.com
wrote:
Throwing this out there while I stew on the pros/cons of it (so
Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy,
etc etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a
`Map` and a `WeakMap` without passing through the branding check ?
That's a very good example indeed, `'has' in obj` or `'set' in obj` does
not grant
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy,
etc etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a
`Map` and a `WeakMap` without passing through the branding
Thanks Mark,
so how is anyone supposed to be sure about or check a Brand in ES6 then?
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Allen I think we all agree duck typing
On 11/1/13, 11:32 AM, James Burke wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Jeff Morrison lbljef...@gmail.com wrote:
Throwing this out there while I stew on the pros/cons of it (so others can
as well):
I wonder how terrible it would be to have this API define module bodies in
terms of a passed
For the ES6 builtin types, I have no idea.
For abstractions you define yourself, your abstraction can brand its
objects using an encapsulated WeakSet or WeakMap. This will work, but with
two problems:
* Awkward syntax until more directly supported by ES7 relationships.
* Sucky performance until
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:relationships
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
For the ES6 builtin types, I have no idea.
For abstractions you define yourself, your abstraction can brand its
objects using an encapsulated WeakSet or
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jeff Morrison lbljef...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's why I said the function generates an instance of a Module object
imperatively (we're already in imperative definition land with this API
anyway).
No need for `import` or `export`
My understanding is that there
On 11/1/2013 1:28 PM, James Burke wrote:
Perhaps you know how a mutable slot could be expressed using existing
syntax for creating Module objects? Illustrating how would clear up a
big disconnect for me.
If I'm understanding what you mean by mutable slot, the only way it
can be expressed
(I'm operating on the assumption that the Module constructor is still
part of the spec):
```
System.define({
A: {
deps: ['B','C'],
factory: function(B, C) {
var stuff = B.doSomething();
return new Module({stuff: stuff});
}
},
B: {
deps: ['D', 'E'],
factory:
On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy, etc
etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a `Map` and
a `WeakMap` without passing through the branding check ?
That's a very good
On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
For the ES6 builtin types, I have no idea.
Most branded ES6 built-ins have non-destructive brand-checking methods that
call be used to perform brand checks.
For example,
function isMap(obj) {
try {Map.prototype.size.call(obj);
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Morrison lbljef...@gmail.com wrote:
(I'm operating on the assumption that the Module constructor is still part
of the spec):
```
System.define({
A: {
deps: ['B','C'],
factory: function(B, C) {
var stuff = B.doSomething();
return
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy,
etc etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a
`Map` and a
On 11/1/2013 4:29 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Hi Allen, perhaps I misunderstood. But I thought that as of ES6,
O.p.toString can't be used for reliable brand checking of anything,
including legacy ES=5 built-ins. Not so? How would I do such a check
of a legacy built-in in ES6?
In the spec for
I just read
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-object.prototype.tostring
and
agree that it continues to preserve the brand checks that were reliable in
ES5.
Cool! Thanks!
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie bben...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 11/1/2013 4:29 PM,
On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In the spec for Object.prototype.toString:
'If tag is any of Arguments, Array, Boolean, Date, Error,
Function, Number, RegExp, or String and SameValue(tag,
builtinTag) is false, then let tag be the string value ~
concatenated with the current value
On 11/1/2013 4:59 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In the spec for Object.prototype.toString:
'If tag is any of Arguments, Array, Boolean, Date, Error,
Function, Number, RegExp, or String and SameValue(tag,
builtinTag) is false, then let tag be the string
Le 02/11/2013 01:08, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
On 11/1/2013 4:59 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 11/1/2013 4:31 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
In the spec for Object.prototype.toString:
'If tag is any of Arguments, Array, Boolean, Date, Error,
Function, Number, RegExp, or String and SameValue(tag,
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
I see that Jason added a Loader.prototype.define to his reference
implementation.
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/js-loaders/Loader.html#section-177.
This is great. It is a much needed capability to allow
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
Now... good use cases could be a sufficient counterargument to all
this. Maybe we should add `import * from` in 2014. I just want to make
it totally clear why it's designed this way for ES6. `import * from`
poses
On Nov 1, 2013, at 6:19 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
Now... good use cases could be a sufficient counterargument to all
this. Maybe we should add `import * from` in 2014. I just want to make
it
On 11/1/2013 7:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Or we could simply not special case Proxy exotic objects and then Proxies would
be handled like any other object, the value of the objects @@toStringTag
property would be accessed and used to compose the toString result.
Which would result in
On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 11/1/2013 7:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Or we could simply not special case Proxy exotic objects and then Proxies
would be handled like any other object, the value of the objects
@@toStringTag property would be accessed and used to
On Oct 31, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
Make sense but I'm not sure it is needed/desired.
I agree, actually, despite being the one who put it in there in the first
place. I originally intended it as a convenience e.g. for quick scripts. But by
itself it's
On 11/1/2013 8:54 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This just reminds me how cold I still am on the fact that you can't easily
one-off Proxy anything that's not a plain Object, Array, or Function because of
the lack of an invoke trap and every other type of built-in has private
state... but I
44 matches
Mail list logo
