On 15 February 2014 21:06, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014 9:13 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Aside: ECMASpeak is neither accurate (we don't
On 15 February 2014 06:10, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Feb 14, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Martin wrote:
On further reflection, #3 does feel like trying to rewrite the past.
For better or worse, non-strict mode allows declarations to persist past
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a last note. Beyond the philosophical aspect whether arraylikes of
negative length make any sense at all, there is a strong technical issue you
have probably overlooked: For array methods in general, and for the
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
But as you point out, I don't think there's any actual behavior
change, since everything washes out to `0` at the end. It's just a
matter of writing a clearer more consistent spec.
Yet in that light you still have a point, I think. Allen?
/be
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 15 February 2014 20:47, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Using -Speak as a stem conjures Orwell. Not good.
Ah, relax. Gilad Bracha even named his own language Newspeak.
Yeah, but no ECMA -- the double-whammy.
Self-mockery is good.
I pay my dues (see
-Messaggio originale-
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:00 AM
To: Nathan Wall
Cc: Giacomo Cau ; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Another switch
Definitely good to see new languages being designed and implemented.
JS is not going to break compatibility on
So, #3 appears to be the winner.
Given that, can we also agree that this is throws (or at least that the
delete does nothing):
eval (let x=5; delete x;);
(bug https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id= )
Allen
On Feb 17, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I'm also fine with
On 2/14/2014 11:40 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
I think Scott is requesting this change:
https://gist.github.com/anba/6c75c34c72d4ffaa8de7
Yes, although my proposed diff (in the linked bug) was the shorter,
12. If end
On Feb 17, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
But as you point out, I don't think there's any actual behavior
change, since everything washes out to `0` at the end. It's just a
matter of writing a clearer more consistent spec.
Yet in that light you still have
Are recordings available?
--scott
On Feb 17, 2014 10:26 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 15 February 2014 20:47, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Using -Speak as a stem conjures Orwell. Not good.
Ah, relax. Gilad Bracha even named his own
I'm trying to work with ES6 Map objects and I ran into an interesting
problem.
I want to index/group based on several key values. Let's say my original
data is something like:
```js
[{x:3,y:5,z:3},{x:3,y:4,z:4},{x:3,y:4,z:7},{x:3,y:1,z:1},{x:3,y:5,z:4}]
```
I want to group it based on the x
In this context, there are two things you might mean by throws:
a) That this delete is an early error within the evaled program, and
therefore throws before any of the code in the evaled program executes.
b) That the delete is a dynamic error that happens when the delete
executes, and therefore
It's not the same effect, because `lenVal` could be an object with
valueOf/toString/@toPrimitive side-effects.
Point taken. (Although I'm fine with invoking the side effects twice
if you're using `this.length` as a default value, since that would be
'unsurprising' if you are looking at the
I understand the capability of python, but that is done through
comprehensions that do not relate to the mapping of key to value.
In ES6 the syntax comes out to:
```
let tuple = {x:3,y:5}
[for (value of map.entries()) if
(Object.keys(tuple).every((tupleKey)=tuple[tupleKey] == value[tupleKey]))
My issue here is that I want to index on complex values. I was under the
impression ES6 maps solve amongst others the problem that with objects -
keys are only strings.
I want to index on 2 (or 100) properties - in this example the x and y
values. I don't want to iterate the whole collection and
See
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-delete-operator-runtime-semantics-evaluation
A better statement of the question would be can we agree that lexical bindings
created by eval are always non-deletable binding. Where or not is throws which
the various modes is
+1.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
See
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-delete-operator-runtime-semantics-evaluation
A better statement of the question would be can we agree that lexical
bindings created by eval are
I'm getting vary. Does that mean that you want to change the semantics
since ES5.1?
On Mon Feb 17 2014 at 5:12:24 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
+1.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
See
No, absolutely not. By lexical, I took Allen to mean the new reliably
block-local binding forms: let, const, class
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm getting vary. Does that mean that you want to change the semantics
since ES5.1?
On Mon Feb
It is straightforward to implement a hash function based map as a
subclass of `Map`. Something like:
```js
var HashMap = function() { this._map = new Map(); };
HashMap.set = function(key, value) {
var hash = key.hashCode();
var list = this._map.get(hash);
if (!list) { list = [];
Le 17/02/2014 22:55, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum a écrit :
My issue here is that I want to index on complex values. I was under
the impression ES6 maps solve amongst others the problem that with
objects - keys are only strings.
With maps, all native types (string, number, boolean, undefined,
Hi,
In the latest draft, I see String.prototype.contains, but no
Array.prototype.contains
I see something about a no-brainer here
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-December/019108.html
I haven't found a bug on bugs.ecmascript or a mention in the meeting notes.
Or was it
Right, let/const/class
Allen
On Feb 17, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
No, absolutely not. By lexical, I took Allen to mean the new reliably
block-local binding forms: let, const, class
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm getting
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Are recordings available?
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/State-JavaScript starting at 1:50
Youtube has more.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to work with ES6 Map objects and I ran into an interesting
problem.
Yes! Well done.
We've noticed this too, and considered (a) allowing objects to provide
their own hash and equals operations, as in
Thanks, I was starting to feel like I wasn't explaining my issue very well
given the other replies. I'm glad we agree this is not something user-code
should have to shim for language level collections.
I'm working on several projects that perform statistical analysis and I
wanted to stick to
26 matches
Mail list logo
