On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:23 AM, Bergi wrote:
Bob Myers schrieb:
Apologies if something like this has already been proposed and/or rejected
for whatever reason.
I think you're looking for the same as
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:define_properties_operator
also see:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Michael Dyck wrote:
What happens to all the unresolved 6th edition bugs when 6th edition is
finalized? (There's currently about 66 in the Confirmed state.) Do they
all get transferred over to 7th edition? Or do they stay where they are,
hoping for resolution in
I don't understand. Could you show example code? Thanks.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:00 PM, John Lenz concavel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
I don’t
What happens to all the unresolved 6th edition bugs when 6th edition is
finalized? (There's currently about 66 in the Confirmed state.) Do they
all get transferred over to 7th edition? Or do they stay where they are,
hoping for resolution in an ES6.1 (or at least an ES6 errata), but perhaps
just
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
I don’t see how any of this follows. SES can censor/remove/etc. either
the .stack getter or the .getStack function. They are isomorphic.
I can
On 15-03-11 04:39 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Michael Dyck wrote:
What happens to all the unresolved 6th edition bugs when 6th edition is
finalized?
They will all be either resolved or transferred to ES7
Good to hear.
-Michael
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:31 PM, John Lenz concavel...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll retract that suggestion having tried to write an argument for it.
Thanks.
It sad though, removing stack isn't really an option.
a) It
John Lenz wrote:
b) It differs so wildly between platforms that cross-web content
can't rely on it.
It exists everywhere and from where I sit it is pretty essential and
there is lot of wiring that exist to propagate and preserve stack traces.
Yeah, I'd be careful concluding too
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:31 PM, John Lenz concavel...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll retract that suggestion having tried to write an argument for it.
Thanks.
It sad though, removing stack isn't really an option.
a) It has never been added, in the sense that it does not appear in the
std.
b)
Bob Myers schrieb:
Apologies if something like this has already been proposed and/or rejected
for whatever reason.
I think you're looking for the same as
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:define_properties_operator
It would be nice to have an operator alternative for
I'm under the impression Error.getStack would suffer the same scoping
issues and it would have to be a module import that a custom loader could
override or a global method that could be hidden by scoping. This doesnt
seem like a pleasant API and seems like something to be relegated to
SES/Caja
I'll retract that suggestion having tried to write an argument for it. It
sad though, removing stack isn't really an option.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
I don't understand. Could you show example code? Thanks.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at
12 matches
Mail list logo
