On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
Submit patches—libraries intended for use in IE8 should be made to support
that platform, it's that simple.
Submitting patches is irrelevant and impractical here.
Why use es5-shim? Because we want to use some scripts
This is an old thread which I like to mention again. The proposal is change
the method name from Array.of() to Array.fromElements() to make it clear
especially for non-English native programmers.
It seems the thread is totally ignored...
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski
Le 17/12/2013 22:52, Alex Kocharin a écrit :
I believe ecmascript isn't versionless yet like html is, and that
number means something.
As far as I'm concerned, ECMAScript is versionless. As versionless as
HTML. Implementation aren't monolithically moving from one standard
version to the
From: Shijun He hax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: About Array.of()
This is an old thread which I like to mention again. The proposal is
change the method name from Array.of() to Array.fromElements() to make it
clear especially for non-English native programmers.
`Array.of` sounds a lot more
Both `String.prototype.startsWith` and `String.prototype.endsWith` throw a
`TypeError` if the first argument is a RegExp:
Throwing an exception if the first argument is a RegExp is specified in order
to allow future editions to define extends that allow such argument values.
However, this is
On Dec 18, 2013 3:31 PM, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
Both `String.prototype.startsWith` and `String.prototype.endsWith` throw
a `TypeError` if the first argument is a RegExp:
Throwing an exception if the first argument is a RegExp is specified in
order to allow future editions to
Are we really doing Object.assign for ES6? We postponed Object.mixin so we
should probably postpone Object.assign too.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:23 AM, A Matías Quezada amati...@gmail.comwrote:
I can't see a better use for extra arguments than multiple extensions.
This is how current
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
Are we really doing Object.assign for ES6? We postponed Object.mixin so we
should probably postpone Object.assign too.
Yes, this was originally accepted on it's own merit, before
Object.define/mixin. Object.assign
+1 to what Benjamin says
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be
However, this is not the case for `String.prototype.contains`, even
though it’s a very similar method.
Array.of sounds expressive only for native speakers.
English is not my first language and it sounded expressive to me. I've
asked 5 random friends that code and they all said it sounded fine to them.
While that's not real evidence, it still shows that the only doesn't hold
here.
The only valid
On Dec 18, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Shijun He wrote:
...
2)
In fact such expressive is MEANINGLESS because we will never write `var a =
Array.of(1, 2, 3)` instead of `var a = [1, 2, 3]`
Note that 'of' works to create instances of subclasses or Array (and typed
arrays) while array literals
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
Array.of sounds expressive only for native speakers.
English is not my first language and it sounded expressive to me. I've
asked 5 random friends that code and they all said it sounded fine to them.
While
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Dec 18, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Shijun He wrote:
...
2)
In fact such expressive is MEANINGLESS because we will never write `var
a = Array.of(1, 2, 3)` instead of `var a = [1, 2, 3]`
Note that 'of' works
then none of them should throw, imho
startsWith is like dropping the `/^` form a `RegExp`, endsWith like
dropping the `$/` part .. that's it
The problem with RegExp is usually the safe escaping, having 1 char less to
type for a `.test()` - so actually counting chars in the method name is
even
I agree both with what Jason said and what Andrea said,
It needs to be consistent and I think the way Andrea suggests is the
correct one.
If anything, I'd expect all of them to throw when passed multiple arguments
for forward compatibility. It might be useful to check multiple values in
Well, even it's confusing it's still better than `of` for the use case, and
some other alternatives:
Array.fromItems // fromXXX has another benifit that alternative constructors
(String.fromCharCode, Array.from) all begin with `from`
Array.fromList
Array.fromArguments
Array.newArray
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ѓорѓи Ќосев gorgi.ko...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that adding branding to promises is impossible at this
point, as it would break backward compatibility with all existing
implementations.
That wasn't the overriding consdieration. I don't care if we don't
On 18 Dec 2013 18:20, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Alex can I ask you if there's any specific deadline you are talking about?
Promises aren't important. They are a tool. And the design space is
*clearly* overconstrained. Anyone paying attention can see that. We should
On 12/19/2013 02:56 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ѓорѓи Ќосев gorgi.ko...@gmail.com
mailto:gorgi.ko...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that adding branding to promises is impossible at this
point, as it would break backward compatibility with all existing
On 18 Dec 2013 20:27, Ѓорѓи Ќосев gorgi.ko...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/2013 02:56 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Ѓорѓи Ќосев gorgi.ko...@gmail.com
wrote:
I understand that adding branding to promises is impossible at this
point, as it would break backward
Thanks for the clarification and FWIW, yeah ... I agree with you but I also
appreciate the effort everyone is putting trying to bring new features that
are as platform agnostic as possible ... but then again, we have real
life/devs/code screaming for solutions ASAP
Devs also complain about
21 matches
Mail list logo
