quick one to whoever will write the proposal: please bear in mind the empty
function **must** have a frozen prototype too
Regards
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Jordan Harband ljh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to bring a proposal to the committee for this since it seems like
there's
On 23 February 2015 at 10:37, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 23/02/2015 10:10, Michał Wadas a écrit :
Cloning objects is long requested feature.
clone object javascript yields 1 480 000 results in Google.
I'd like to share this as an answer
(es-discuss to bcc)
I see the attraction of having [Global] do all the work for us, for all the
logistical reasons you mention. But I still really don't like the
action-at-a-distance on EventTarget.
Maybe this is a happy medium?
- [Global]/[PrimaryGlobal] = operations from the interface or
We still an an option open to us, that would merely compatibly remove a
restriction from the language rather than add a feature: Allow labels to
remain visible across function boundaries, or at least across arrow
function boundaries. Then one could break-to-label to a label of a
lexically
On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
We still an an option open to us, that would merely compatibly remove a
restriction from the language rather than add a feature: Allow labels to
remain visible across function boundaries, or at least across arrow function
boundaries. Then
I think its latest home is https://github.com/whatwg/loader/
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 02:03 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to find the module Loader in the latest draft, but found
out that it's been removed from it [1][2].
YK: The loader pipeline will be done in a
Here is a new proposal for a declarative replacement for
Function.prototype.toMethod which was dropped from ES6 earlier this year
https://github.com/allenwb/ESideas/blob/master/dcltomethod.md
I've added this to the agenda for next months TC39 meeting but pre-meeting
discussion is welcomed
El 23/02/2015 20:29, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org escribió:
Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum wrote:
Of course this example is contrived! It's the simplest example I could
think of. I do think it stands for every example of any iterator that takes
any input from `.send` or `.throw`. I have
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at 16:22, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
We still an an option open to us, that would merely compatibly remove a
restriction from the language rather than add a feature: Allow labels to
Why not? The generator would switch on sent value, in a loop.
Well, let's say we have an iterator that does nothing once, returns what
was sent to it the first 5 times and then is done:
```js
function* gen(){
var res = yield;
for(var i = 0; i 5; i++){
res = yield res;
}
}
var iter =
Mark S. Miller wrote:
My other suspicion: The previous failure of this proposal was before
many people had much hands on experience using higher order functions
in JS as a normal alternative to control structures. Now that we all
have, the need for a non-local escape may be more visceral.
Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum wrote:
Of course this example is contrived! It's the simplest example I could
think of. I do think it stands for every example of any iterator that
takes any input from `.send` or `.throw`. I have plenty of other
contrived examples (implementing `fork` like this by
No one has taken my bet :-P.
/be
Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
mailto:erig...@google.com wrote:
Array.prototype has reverted to being an empty initially empty
exotic array object.
Function.prototype remains a no-op
Of course this example is contrived! It's the simplest example I could
think of. I do think it stands for every example of any iterator that takes
any input from `.send` or `.throw`. I have plenty of other contrived
examples (implementing `fork` like this by using generators for coroutines
with
Since gambling with real money is technically still illegal, I have
responded to Brendan privately.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
No one has taken my bet :-P.
/be
Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Mark S. Miller
On 23 February 2015 at 16:22, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
We still an an option open to us, that would merely compatibly remove a
restriction from the language rather than add a feature: Allow labels to
remain visible across function boundaries, or at least across arrow
function
Salvador de la Puente González wrote:
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.
Why not?
On Feb 23, 2015 6:06 AM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
quick one to whoever will write the proposal: please bear in mind the
empty function **must** have a frozen prototype too
Regards
Andrea, good catch.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Jordan Harband
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Isiah Meadows isiahmead...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 23, 2015 6:06 AM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Jordan Harband ljh...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
- We'd definitely want `Map.empty` and `Set.empty`
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Salvador de la Puente González wrote:
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
```
PostfixExpression :
[...]
MixinExpression [no LineTerminator here] ++
MixinExpression [no LineTerminator here] --
```
Is this a typo? What is the point of the `++`/`--` postfix operators after
a `MixinExpression`?
/fm
___
es-discuss
```
PostfixExpression :
[...]
MixinExpression [no LineTerminator here] ++
MixinExpression [no LineTerminator here] --
```
Is this a typo? What is the point of the `++`/`--` postfix operators after
a `MixinExpression`?
It's establishing the precedence of the MixinExpression
Minor wording nit-pick/question:
In what sense is an operator form declarative? I get that it's not an
API -- special form is special ;-). But what's being declared if the
only grammar extension is to the expression grammar?
/be
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Here is a new proposal for a
It's establishing the precedence of the MixinExpression between
PostfixExpression and LeftHandSideExpression.
Thanks Kevin, I thought it could be the case, but I still can't see when
that is relevant -- as far as I can see, the resulting value of a
mixinExpression is always an object (or a
On Feb 23, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Minor wording nit-pick/question:
In what sense is an operator form declarative? I get that it's not an API --
special form is special ;-). But what's being declared if the only grammar
extension is to the expression grammar?
I know, one
Le 23 févr. 2015 à 21:47, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com a écrit :
Here is a new proposal for a declarative replacement for
Function.prototype.toMethod which was dropped from ES6 earlier this year
https://github.com/allenwb/ESideas/blob/master/dcltomethod.md
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
(Not saying anything needs to be added right now. Just pointing out
the specifics, as it seemed you were talking past each other.)
Thanks, I was thinking beyond tee as a generic, which copies (requiring
a set-aside, could be a lot of memory). If the cliff leads to
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Michał Wadas michalwa...@gmail.com wrote:
My proposition is to create a new well known Symbol - Symbol.clone and
corresponding method on Object - Object.clone.
Anything that does not deal with
https://github.com/dslomov-chromium/ecmascript-structured-clone
Cloning objects is long requested feature.
clone object javascript yields 1 480 000 results in Google.
My proposition is to create a new well known Symbol - Symbol.clone and
corresponding method on Object - Object.clone.
Default behavior for an object is to throw on clone try.
Hi,
Le 23/02/2015 10:10, Michał Wadas a écrit :
Cloning objects is long requested feature.
clone object javascript yields 1 480 000 results in Google.
I'd like to share this as an answer
http://facebook.github.io/immutable-js/#the-case-for-immutability
If an object is immutable, it can be
Hi,
I was trying to find the module Loader in the latest draft, but found
out that it's been removed from it [1][2].
YK: The loader pipeline will be done in a living spec (a la HTML5)
so that Node and the browser can collaborate on shared needs.
I haven't been able to find this new document
I'm aware about structured clone, but there is a basic difference -
structured clone is a way to copy object to other Realm, Symbol.clone would
be a more powerful (supporting constructors, classes and functions) way to
clone objects.
On Feb 23, 2015 10:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
I'm not sure I get it. I am very impressed by Allen's point about using
lambda abstraction (Allen said procedural abstraction) to parameterize a
super binding.
Could you show a small self contained example that uses toMethod to do some
metaprogramming that cannot be done with Allen's mixin, where
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Note that the lambda abstraction technique also can support a dynamically
provided method name:
let aVarNamedMixin = (obj, name) = obj mixin {
[name] () {
//do something
super[name]()
}
}
That's not bad. Never reach for eval where a function will do.
What about this? Would this satisfy the metaprogramming problem?
```js
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj)
.map(name = [name, obj[name]])
.filter(keepCorrectFunctions)
.map(([name, f]) = {
obj mixin {
[name + 'Async'](...args) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) =
f.call(this,
I wonder why we cannot have toMethod, in due course. You had suggested
the ES6 signature with a second parameter, with default value:
Function.prototype.toMethod(homeObject, methodName = this.name);
With a function.name spec'ed in ES6, that might be enough to address the
concerns raised by
Doh! Nevermind. I get it.
Can you explain what you realized, briefly?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Feb 23, 2015 3:31 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Isiah Meadows isiahmead...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 23, 2015 6:06 AM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Jordan Harband ljh...@gmail.com
That if you are given a method with an already bound super, toMethod allows
you to create a method like it with a different super binding -- without
source manipulation. mixin does not -- again, without source manipulation.
I like Allen's point about [[HomeObject]] being like [[Scope]]. They are
On Feb 23, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I wonder why we cannot have toMethod, in due course. You had suggested the
ES6 signature with a second parameter, with default value:
Function.prototype.toMethod(homeObject, methodName = this.name);
With a function.name spec'ed in ES6,
Doh! Nevermind. I get it.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
I'm not sure I get it. I am very impressed by Allen's point about using
lambda abstraction (Allen said procedural abstraction) to parameterize a
super binding.
Could you show a small self
Only that the proxy can detect each of the operations as a distinct trap,
and do something weird. A proxy that intend to emulate anything like a
normal object would choose not to, preserving by convention this
equivalence. It becomes a matter of informal unchecked contract
conformance, rather than
On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
Allen and I have been discussing this on Twitter. I thought I’d bring my
thoughts to list to get them somewhere with less of a character limit.
In general, I think this is a pretty nice syntax for authors. However, I'm
concerned that
A programmer who wrote the assignment aPusher.push =
MyArray.prototype.push was probably thinking that they could just reuse the
push method from MyArray.prototype and that the super.push call within it
would start searching for a push method at the [[Prototype]] of aPusher.
But it doesn't.
As a
Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum wrote:
Why not? The generator would switch on sent value, in a loop.
Well, let's say we have an iterator that does nothing once, returns
what was sent to it the first 5 times and then is done:
```js
function* gen(){
var res = yield;
for(var i = 0; i 5; i++){
Allen and I have been discussing this on Twitter. I thought I’d bring my
thoughts to list to get them somewhere with less of a character limit.
In general, I think this is a pretty nice syntax for authors. However, I'm
concerned that it doesn't satisfy the metaprogramming use case that
46 matches
Mail list logo
