It probably would be backward incompatible change. Too much code depends on
[Object Object].
2 gru 2014 08:46 Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hi,
Probably worth providing a default implementation of the `@@toStringTag`
when evaluating a class [1]. In this case users
Le 2 déc. 2014 à 09:04, Michał Wadas michalwa...@gmail.com a écrit :
It probably would be backward incompatible change. Too much code depends on
[Object Object].
I'm curious to know what sort of code would be broken by `O.p.toString.call(x)
=== [object Point]` for instances `x` of some
Same question here.
AFAIK usually the `({}.toString.call(generic) === [object Object])` check
is the `default:` in a switch, the last `else` in a flow, etc etc ...
although I wouldn't be surprised if some code, somewhere, would do strict
comparison to know if it's a user defined object or not. In
On 1 December 2014 at 03:12, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Per spec ES6, it seems to me like attempting to define a non-configurable
property on a WindowProxy should throw and getting a property descriptor for
a
Hi,
I feel like I've been in an equivalent discussion some time ago, so
taking the liberty to answer.
Le 02/12/2014 13:59, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
On 1 December 2014 at 03:12, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Le 02/12/2014 14:24, David Bruant a écrit :
Hi,
I feel like I've been in an equivalent discussion some time ago
The topic felt familiar :-p
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2012OctDec/0322.html
David
___
es-discuss mailing
Yes. I was glad to find in that message a pointer back to
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-December/027114.html
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:36 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/12/2014 14:24, David Bruant a écrit :
Hi,
I feel like I've been in an equivalent
On 12/2/14, 4:59 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 03:12, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Per spec ES6, it seems to me like attempting to define a non-configurable
property on a WindowProxy should
On 12/2/14, 5:24 AM, David Bruant wrote:
The handler can have access to the list all declared variable to know
which property should behave as if non-configurable.
That's not even needed. If the handler just passes configurable defines
on through to the target for a property declared via
Le 2 déc. 2014 à 08:46, Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com a écrit
:
Hi,
Probably worth providing a default implementation of the `@@toStringTag` when
evaluating a class [1]. In this case users will be able to do:
```
class Point { ... }
var p = new Point(1, 2);
On 29 November 2014 at 22:30, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
[...]
With a normal ephemeral weak map implementation, like the one in V8,
the value in a (map,key,value) triple can be reclaimed _immediately_
The difference between [Object Point] and [Object Set] is fundamental.
Your application would not change any behavior without explicit creating
new Set.
But changing behavior of existing code is something different - it can
introduce subtle bugs in enclosed environment.
2 gru 2014 13:03 Claude
I think by `@@toStringTag` he meant the ability to define a `[[Class]]`
name so that `{}.toString.call(generic)` would return such name instead of
`Object` but I'm sure Dmitry will come back explaining and/or asking more.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Andrea
Giammarchi
I think by `@@toStringTag` he meant the ability to define a `[[Class]]` name
so that `{}.toString.call(generic)` would return such name instead of
`Object` but I'm sure Dmitry will come back explaining
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Michal
Wadas
But changing behavior of existing code is something different - it can
introduce subtle bugs in enclosed environment.
Nobody is proposing changing the behavior of existing code. They are proposing
changing
On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Good. I think we're coming to a mutual understanding. By scavenge I
mean exactly your minor collection. I think collecting typical
garbage during minor collection, rather than promoting/tenuring it, is
desperately important, and dominates
Good point about multi-gen. Lars Hansen even researched oldest first
collection:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/professional/research/presentations/gc/index.html
Clearly, Ungar's model was a simplification, with trade-offs as expected.
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
My main take-away from this
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I think by `@@toStringTag` he meant the ability to define a `[[Class]]`
name so that `{}.toString.call(generic)` would return such name instead of
`Object` but I'm sure Dmitry will come back explaining and/or
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I think by `@@toStringTag` he meant the ability to define a `[[Class]]`
name so that `{}.toString.call(generic)` would
19 matches
Mail list logo
