On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More helpful would be
comments on the utility of let blocks (a.k.a. let statements) and let
expressions. Also comparisons to the several let forms in
One reason I brought them up now was that Java-style classes were
discussed. Significant parts of this class functionality could
instead be offered by third-party library vendors using these
keywords. We'd get more variation, greater freedom, and much
faster adaptability, than if it's defined
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:40 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
All the data types in ES3 listed in section 15 have literals version
(e.g. {} for Object, [] for Array etc) except for Date. Is there any
reason that the Kona 15.9.1.15 Date Time string format
Hey, I like that. In the spirit of fun, here's something that does
something weird and random.
var fsm = {
r: {|| Math.random()0.5},
f: {|a| print(a); ( fsm.r() ? fsm.s : fsm.r() ? fsm.m : {||} )(f);},
s: {|a| print(a); ( fsm.r() ? fsm.m : fsm.r() ? fsm.f : {||} )(s) },
Question: How would I write a recursive function with that syntax? Is
there a way to name the lambda, other than var = {||}; ?
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Is recursion still desirable in this form. If so, then of the three I like
\(a,b,c) {}
because you can think of the \ as being an abbreviation of function.
\ name(a,b,c) {}
Just don't start your function name with u.
well if we're thinking about lambdas as blocks++, then why not
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be a stupid question, but is the current let expression syntax
defined in JavaScript 1.7 too fundamentally different from the sought out
lambda expression to be repurposed? Or would this wreak havoc on current
uses?
I
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Breton Slivka wrote:
I admit this seems ludicrous at its face, but admittedly I have not
really seen the arguments against λ as an abbreviated lambda syntax
yet.
Not compatibly: ES3 already
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought this might be the answer. It's clearly too much to ask of all
lambda-coders and would-be lambda-coders in the world.
My two cents, perhaps I'm wrong and the Schemers and others will switch
their kbd configs. Or
Okay, is it possible to introduce lambdas with no new syntax at all?
possibility 1:
for instance, suppose that we have a function that doesn't use
arguments or this. Can the implementation statically analyze a
function to determine whether a function uses those, and if it does
not, optimise it?
1) It's disallowed, Array instances can't have own accessor properties with
array index names. (and since Array.prototype is an Array instance it can't
either. An array instance could only inherit an accessor property with an
array index name from Object.prototype)
(snip)
My preference is
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Herman Venter wrote:
Finally, there is another approach to resolving this issue. Define a new
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM, P T Withington p...@pobox.com wrote:
snip
function subclass () { this.constructor = arguments.callee; }
I don't want to smash mysub.prototype.constructor, because that is how I
implement 'super': constructor.prototype.constructor.
I don't think we can change
People generally expect math to work how they've been taught in
school. When javascript violates their expectations, that is the very
definition of a bug.
It is true that binary might be more precise for certain kinds of
applications, and if it's a native machine type there's performance
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 24, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Charles Jolley wrote:
I'm curious, why not just give anonymous functions a default name like
callee. Or perhaps have callee defined in a function scope to represent
the function? That seems
x
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'd like to know is what the rationale for removing arguments.callee
from strict mode is. Is it a performance problem? If so, have implementors
tried other solutions at compile-time before agitating for the removal of
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Breton Slivka z...@zenpsycho.com wrote:
x
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'd like to know is what the rationale for removing arguments.callee
from strict mode is. Is it a performance problem? If so, have
The one that I use is
function isArrayLike(i){
return (typeof i !==string) i.length !== void (0);
}
It might not be perfect, but it allows me to make certain assumptions
about the input that are useful enough. Keep in mind that an Array may
have a length of 5, and all those values are
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Breton Slivka z...@zenpsycho.com wrote:
The one that I use is
function isArrayLike(i){
return (typeof i !==string) i.length !== void (0);
}
It might not be perfect, but it allows me to make certain assumptions
about the input that are useful enough. Keep
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood
david-sa...@jacaranda.org wrote:
snip
That would however depend on an assessment of whether browser
implementors had succeeded in implementing secure and correct
ES5-AST parsers (with a mode that accepts exactly ES5 as specified,
not ES5 plus
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
(3) If (!1), should future EcmaScript drafts define iteration order
for arrays as index order and possibly recommend to array like host
objects that the define iteration order similarly.
I would suggest that this change
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/14 Breton Slivka z...@zenpsycho.com:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
(3) If (!1), should future EcmaScript drafts define iteration order
for arrays as index order
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Getify Solutions get...@gmail.com wrote:
I am aware that I'm kicking a potentially angry beehive by bringing up this
topic, but I wanted to just have some discussion around if there's any
possibility that JavaScript can, in the near term, have a native mechanism
I can't think of a single way to simulate setTimeout in ES5. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but I don't think ES5 exposes a single way of defining a
mechanism like:
--
var x = 4;
function f(){ x = 5; print(x); }
timer(f, 1);
print(f);
--
Such that it would output 4 before 5. That's what I
never write code on no sleep.
that code sample should be :
timers= (function () {
var timers = [];
var id=0;
timer=function (f,t) {
timers.push({func:f, interval:t, id:id++});
return id;
}
return timers;
})
runScript(env.js);
whoah! I didn't know that. Why doesn't that work with:
function o () {}; o.prototype=null; new o();
?
As for the current discussion, I should think that some way to
instantiate a new clean global object, and inject it into the
current scope would be somewhat more useful, as it would enable
If I could demonstrate my idea working in Narcissus (or your parser of
choice), would that be helpful or useful to anyone?
I was thinking about the ambiguity of {x,y} with relation to the
key/value shortcut, and it seems that there's a lot of ambiguities
around the { symbol that are causing some
Perhaps I am overlooking something obvious, but is there something
wrong with calling a constructor function `constructor`, rather than
class or proto or prototype?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
hereby relinquish all copyright, trademark and patent rights I may
possibly hold, to the idea of unifying the object literal and block
grammar constructions to the TC39 group and its constituent members,
so help me god.
-Breton Slivka
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote
29 matches
Mail list logo
