Hey Philip,
you can see
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/proposal-generator-clone-and-generator-goto for
more about this topic.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Philip Polkovnikov
polkovnikov...@gmail.com wrote:
- 1. Where is the function `run`?
The function `run` is pretty classic variation on
As the comments from Tab Atkins and John Lenz there suggest, this is
best done above the level of the standard, for now. If we need to roll
up itertools including tee in ES7 (I am pretty sure we do), the best way
to get there is via github -- not by prematurely standardizing APIs or
OK, I think I might be on the trail of this one.
[1] indicates a plan to make [Global]-annotated objects, like the Window
object, apply [ImplicitThis] behavior to the object's methods and the methods
of anything that shows up in its prototype chain. [ImplicitThis] behavior is
defined at [2],
There, Boris writes:
Conceptually, using the global of the realm of the function involved
(i.e. the Chrome/Firefox/IE10 behavior) makes sense to me.
Me too. This is in keeping with the spirit of lexical scoping. It is as if
these built-in functions have lexically captured the global of the
Is Array.prototype an exotic Array Instance? Or is it still a standard
exotic object? This is somewhat relevant to V8 bug 3890
https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3890, which is targeted at
implementing that change.
--
Isiah Meadows
___
I really liked Jordan Harband's suggestion
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-change-was-tostringtag-spoofing-for-null-and-undefined#content-12
of
adding Array.empty, Function.empty, etc. to ES7. It is relatively easy to
polyfill as well.
```js
[Array,
ArrayBuffer,
Int8Array,
I'd love to bring a proposal to the committee for this since it seems like
there's interest.
I suspect that even though some of the empties seem useless to some,
somebody somewhere will find a use case, and consistency is useful (that
everything that could have a concept of empty would have a
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Array.prototype has reverted to being an empty initially empty exotic
array object.
Function.prototype remains a no-op function object.
Empty in terms of the indexed properties, and with a .length of 0.
Array.prototype
(Cc'ing public-script-coord in case this answer gets more complicated in the
presence of the window proxy/overriden this-in-global setup.)
Given code like
script
addEventListener(foo, function () { });
/script
Is this supposed to be an Invoke(current global, addEventListener,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
(Cc'ing public-script-coord in case this answer gets more complicated in
the presence of the window proxy/overriden this-in-global setup.)
Given code like
script
addEventListener(foo, function () { });
https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#ImplicitThis says:
If the [ImplicitThis] https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#ImplicitThis extended
attribute https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#dfn-extended-attribute appears
on an interface https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#dfn-interface, it
indicates that when a
Array.prototype has reverted to being an empty initially empty exotic array
object.
Function.prototype remains a no-op function object.
All the other X.prototypes remain plain vanilla non-exotic objects.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Isiah Meadows isiahmead...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is
Thanks Mark. At this point it may tend toward more of a public-script-coord
question...
From: Mark Miller [mailto:erig...@gmail.com]
If it is strict code, then this is definitely a
Call(addEventListener, undefined, foo, function () {})
I won't try to speak definitively for what happens if
From: Mark Miller [mailto:erig...@gmail.com]
the ECMAScript global object? Which one? (Even if it is clear from context,
please assume I do not have that context.)
Heh; good catch. A contemporary thread to my [1] is
Mark Miller wrote:
There, Boris writes:
Conceptually, using the global of the realm of the function involved
(i.e. the Chrome/Firefox/IE10 behavior) makes sense to me.
Me too. This is in keeping with the spirit of lexical scoping. It is
as if these built-in functions have lexically captured
My initial feedback is that this needs a lot more why in comparison to the
how. The only inkling of why this might be useful is an unsourced assertion
that it's done in Clojure, for unknown reasons. The example code isn't very
compelling either; something more real-world would be good there.
Yep. This was already discussed in the topic I mentioned before. Just to
remember, the real problem with tee() is that the generators are not
actually independent as you can not .send() different information to each
one to make them diverge.
So producing a real clone of the generator is not
Hey all,
I’d like to propose an addition to ES7 to add @@reduced as a way to
short-circuit from Array.prototype.reduce.
I’ve written up a polyfill and explanation here:
https://github.com/leebyron/ecma-reduced
I would love your feedback on this.
Lee
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
My initial feedback is that this needs a lot more why in comparison to
the how.
The technical reason for this I guess, is that JS doesn't have TCP blocks,
that would allow you to stop iteration, and exit the `reduce`
On 2/22/15 4:55 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
[1] indicates a plan to make [Global]-annotated objects, like the Window object, apply
[ImplicitThis] behavior to the object's methods and the methods of anything
that shows up in its prototype chain.
More like a proposal than a plan, sadly. One
20 matches
Mail list logo
