On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
ES5 introduced the concept of directives, using perfectly fine fallback
with no side effects. This was, as far as the above goes, perfect. Older
implementations
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Peter van der Zee e...@qfox.nl wrote:
would be ignored by older browsers. This seems bad because downrev
browsers would try to run the script content, unless you use server-side
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
To be solved:
- Allow non-string-property keys
- Allow hidden properties, non-enumerable, not generically accessible
(like stringed keys are now). To be honest
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 18, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
To be solved:
- Allow non-string
Baron of Mozilla has written cogently about this header [C].
I'm not in favor of inventing something in Ecma that adds opt-in versioning
of the object model (2), for the reason I gave in reply to Peter van der
Zee: complete opt-in versioning including new API visiblity is too brittle
over time
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Dean Edwards dean.edwa...@gmail.comwrote:
On 16 April 2010 13:13, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that approach used in ECMA-262-5 for new object methods
contradicts ES nature.
+1
The new API seems quite random. I hope that
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
And I have a question. Why ES5 give control on values of internal
attributes? What will improve that? Save augmentation of built-in?
Good design of JS
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:48 PM, P T Withington p...@pobox.com wrote:
On 2010-04-16, at 14:31, David Herman wrote:
Tucker: if the property-nameness attribute weren't transferrable but
names were objects with property tables, do you think that would be powerful
enough? Or would you want the
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:06, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
By the way, it is also
) and I'm
wondering why the spec wasn't straightened out to get rid of these
inconsistencies :)
With regards,
Peter van der Zee
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Rather than an arbitrary subset of sizes (Int32Array, etc) I would rather see
some kind of generic ArrayMapping or ArrayVector that takes another array and
the size of each cell (position of the array) in bits as an argument.
So..
new ArrayMapping(arrBuf, intBits, intStart, intFinish);
That way
101 - 111 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
