David,
Thanks for those clarifying points, much appreciated.
From an academic perspective, I'm also curious about the change from # to -gt;
To be honest, # always seemed weird to me, but I welcome a shortened syntax
regardless
Rick
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On May 7, 2011 8:18 PM, Juan
Just read
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-November/008218.html and
I'm buzzing with the idea of Lisp style functions as inspiration for a
short hand. While I realize the idea is likely absurd, but I'm thinking in
terms of concepts that _all_ JavaScript devs know and understand.
.
Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Just read
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-November/008218.html
and I'm buzzing with the idea of Lisp style functions as inspiration
for a short hand. While I realize the idea is likely absurd, but I'm
thinking in terms of concepts
David,nbsp;
For clarification, can you give a working example (ie runable in FF nightly) of
this:
Object.prototype.toString could return different
things for DOM objects. This can certainly be implemented in pure
ES.next with WeakMaps.
Thanks in advance!
Rick
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On
;david.bru...@labri.frgt; wrote:
Le 13/05/2011 02:55, Rick Waldron a écrit :
gt; David,
gt;
gt; For clarification, can you give a working example (ie runable in FF
gt; nightly) of this:
gt;
gt; Object.prototype.toString could return different
gt; things for DOM objects. This can certainly
Boris,
Would you mind sharing a piece of working code (as in, runs in the latest
Firefox Nightly) that demonstrates your example in a real world scenario?
This would be greatly appreciated
Rick
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/14/11 6:37 PM, Oliver
of and apply to real-world uses?, in short:
developer education/relations.
Either way, thanks again!
Rick
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 14, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Boris,
Would you mind sharing a piece of working code (as in, runs
Brendan,
Just wanted to say that as I gather information about this and other ES.next
APIs, these points of clarification are really appreciated - thanks again.
Rick
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 15, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Rick Waldron wrote
Off topic.
Hi Rick, my name is Rick. Nice to meet you.
- Rick
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Hudson, Rick rick.hud...@intel.comwrote:
This is all a bit off topic but performance does matter and folks seem to
be underestimating the wealth of community knowledge that exists in this
Just sort of curious... Given the following:
// old and busted
function SomeClass() {}; SomeClass.prototype.someMethod = function(arg) {
... }
// new hotness
class SomeClass { someMethod(arg) { ... } }
In the second form, how would I denote a method that is defined as an own
property?
With all due respect, as I'm quite new to the es-discuss list, but from a
developer's perspective this proposal seems more like a host object API than
a native object API.
I'm trying to broaden my understanding about the qualifications and life
cycle of a proposal
Thanks in advance!
Rick
On
Thank you! That is precisely the information I had hoped to glean.
Rick
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On May 19, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
With all due respect, as I'm quite new to the es-discuss list, but from a
developer's
At the very bottom, there is a note that says:
With GLR parsing for the spec grammar, we could consider, e.g. (x) {x} instead
of {|x| x} with *LineTerminator* excluded between parameters and body.
FWIW, Speaking from a developers perspective, the syntax: (x){x} , has a
very familiar voice that
Please excuse me, I'm just looking for clarification - thanks in advance:
Also, the current infix writable mark does not compose with Implicit
property initialization expressions [1] as noted in [2]. Using a
prefix fixes this:
let a = {!b}
This conflicts with the existing:
var foo =
I have no intention of bike-shedding, but the following example keeps
popping up:
Arrow Function/Block:
function f() {
a.forEach({| | return 3});
}
...And I wonder if forEach was _only_ used to illustrate an example of the
block lambda syntax? If this was meant to serve as an actual
The more I think about it, I still can't come up with any really exciting use
casesnbsp;wherenbsp;Array.ofnbsp;would outshine anything that already
exists. I say strike it from the wishlist.
Array.from() still rules.
Rick
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On Jul 10, 2011 12:59 PM, Dmitry A.
David, I like the way you paint your bike sheds. Array.range() (or similarly
functional but differently named) is definitely another one of those
oft-rerolled solutions.
Rick
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:23 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
So from this viewpoint (and regarding that
As a sidenote, but with regard to forEach, can someone point me to some
documentation that explains why the generic form of forEach doesn't work with
objects (the use case has sufficient history)
Rick
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On Jul 10, 2011 6:42 PM, David Bruant lt;david.bru...@labri.frgt;
Hey Bob, FWIW...
class Point {
constructor(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
zero() {
return new Point(0, 0);
}
unit() {
return new Point(1, 1);
}
prototype {
manhattanDistance() {
return Math.abs(this.x) + Math.abs(this.y);
}
}
}
I'd like to speak on behalf of the JavaScript Community that you mentioned
above... Unequivocally, a property is a property and method is a property
whose value is a function.
Simply, property and method. This terminology is used widely in
publication and conversation.
Rick
On Fri, Jul 22,
I've been playing with this:
https://github.com/zaach/reflect.js
which has a web interface to try out code examples here:
http://zaach.github.com/reflect.js/es-next/
Rick
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
In the fork of Narcissus at
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
What do you mean by clean scope? All scope chains have at least global
scope in them. Is that what clean scope chain would be — the one including
global scope
This is a great idea, but I wonder if the concept could be implemented using
comments as we already know them? This would leave it up to the user how
they want to parse the property's value. Just a thought - either way, I
think this is a valuable idea.
Rick
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:56 PM,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, let's up the topic. Seems there are no technical issues in the proposed
thing -- we can simply either accept it or not. The question is whether it's
needed and sound proposal and the feature to have in
Just want to clarify that neither jQuery nor its selector engine Sizzle have
any occurrences of function arity checking via the function length property.
Both codebases have occurrences of arguments.length checking
Rick
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
While we're sharing... I've also written an implementation, albiet much
simpler in form then Dmitry's or Irakli's, but this will work in ES today as
is, using old-time multi-line and single line comments.
https://gist.github.com/1160879
Rick
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Brendan Eich
Also, mine will suffer from the same downfall noted in Oliver's
comments.. Function.toString
isn't standardised, and I recall that in the past SM did elide dead code
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
While we're sharing... I've also written
How, if at all, will generator function* (asterisk notation) be
symmetrically applicable to arrow function or block lamba syntax?
References
Generators: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:generators
Arrow Functions:
Thanks for the use cases and clarification
Rick
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
How, if at all, will generator function* (asterisk notation) be
symmetrically applicable to arrow function or block lamba
I was wondering if a canonical guide for ECMAScript style and conventions
exists - specifically I'm curious to find out what the historic precedence,
rules and reasoning behind the capitalization of constructors and built-in
objects, ie. Array or Math. Even _more_ specifically, there exists a
guides. Usually
that's said, either Java's style guide is used, or the same but with 2
spaces.
Dmitry.
http://www.jslint.com/
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
I was wondering if a canonical guide for ECMAScript style and
conventions
the statement ends ambiguously.
On Sep 9, 2011, at September 9, 20111:06 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:Thanks for all
the input. I'm actually aware of and have studied quite thoroughly both of the
resources that were provided - I'm kind of a stickler for style guides.
I was actually very specifically looking
Wes,
I was referring to the _very_ first reply to this thread.
Thanks again
Rick
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On Sep 9, 2011 4:48 PM, Wes Garland lt;w...@page.cagt; wrote:
On 9 September 2011 16:06, Rick Waldron lt;waldron.r...@gmail.comgt; wrote:
I was actually very specifically looking
I was curious to learn what the fee, in USD, for 2012 Ordinary Membership of
Ecma
Thanks!
Rick
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.comwrote:
I'm hopeful that type inference combined with class syntax and
an (eventual) traits system will get us there, so that you can use
structural type tests for enforcement and that the IDE can get the
benefit of hints
WeakMap is in Harmony...
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:weak_maps
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Sean Eagan wrote:
Would a WeakPair primitive be useful...
let wp = new WeakPair(key, value);
...
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote:
If I was a programmer
looking for something like weak referencing in JS for the first time,
weak is what I'd be searching for.
But if you're actually aware of weakrefs (as I am), and you're searching
for them in JS (as
It appears that ES6 is ok: http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/capitol-js
Rick
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
twitter.com/rauschma
home: rauschma.de
That jsperf is too noisy to actually be measuring the performance of
anything. If you want to test the performance of just the logic in question
- then that should be all that exists.
See: http://jsperf.com/endwithlogic
From a web dev perspective... fallback definitions should always try to
Note, next to the Filter option, above the chart, click All
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
That jsperf is too noisy to actually be measuring the performance of
anything. If you want to test the performance of just the logic in question
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
No worries, array extras are a great addition, we just need to keep
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Brendan Eich bren
I'm curious to know why unit-testing is the motivation. In most cases,
encapsulation should never be broken for sake of exercising a public api.
Private data and methods should do their work while the public api bears the
results of the complete logic set, ie. the public api should fail its tests
Whoops! Forgot to cite that source...
http://www.artima.com/suiterunner/private2.html
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm curious to know why unit-testing is the motivation. In most cases,
encapsulation should never be broken for sake of exercising
Is it possible to share the example code?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:18 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Bob Nystrom wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Dean Landolt
http://es5.github.com is a good resource/starting point
Rick
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.comwrote:
As a detour from controversial language design issues, I was
wondering about opportunities to improve the ES spec usability:
- source availability: could
Allen,
Have you considered moving the spec drafting to a revision controlled
system, such as git? Michael Smith maintains an annotated and hyperlinked
version of ES5.1 here http://es5.github.com/. A system like this would
certainly make your maintenance tasks easier, in addition to facilitating a
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
In a vein similar to making [] available to collections, one could make
new and instanceof available to other inheritance schemes.
For example:
// “Meta-class” for prototypes as classes/instantiable prototypes
Most of the answers below are direct quotes from ES 5.1
- What do you call something that produces instances in JavaScript? A
class? A type? A constructor? Or is a constructor the implementation of a
type?
A constructor. http://es5.github.com/#x4.3
- Are Date and RegExp built-in types?
Michael,
It took me a while to find them the first time I looked, but they are
downloadable here:
http://hg.ecmascript.org/tests/test262/
Instructions here:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=test262:command
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On
Also +1 to Nicholas points
On the whole, the proposal is very verbose - I'm not sure how much more
clear the web development community has to be about this - they don't want
to type long Java-esque constructor names. Look at any popular library - the
best ones are those that create simple,
On Oct 30, 2011, at 1:03 AM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_extension_literal_class_pattern
const className = superClass |
On Oct 30, 2011, at 5:58 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 30/10/2011 02:35, Quildreen Motta a écrit :
(...)
Are we overthinking classes?
Perhaps the reason for all this thinking about classes come from the
role constructor functions take in the language? I'm a bit
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 5:58 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 30/10/2011 02:35, Quildreen Motta a écrit :
(...)
Are we
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 29, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Personally I'd ask whether there is a good reason to have class
properties on the constructor.
I’m not too fond of them, either. Many current use cases go
begets is pure win. http://i.word.com/idictionary/beget, it's pronounceable
and searchable/google-able (being able to find new syntax docs is crucial). It
has a known history and follows an existing grammar precedent.
Perhaps least importantly, I feel like a can get excited about begets
/Rick
, because JavaScript does not
have modules, yet?
On Oct 30, 2011, at 21:05 , Rick Waldron wrote:
This pattern makes is _very_ easy for newer developers/adopters to
understand the division of functionality:
- DOM methods here: jQuery().foo()
- Everything else here: jQuery.bar()
--
Dr
that exports the “everything else”
functions and the identifiers $ and jQuery for the DOM stuff.
On Nov 5, 2011, at 0:28 , Rick Waldron wrote:
No, not at all. It's a conscious design decision that results in only
introducing one new property to the global object (two if you count the
shorthand
On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
In the real world IE9 still accounts for almost 50% of browsers. Then
there's another 6% for FF3.6 and another 3% for opera.
Latest Opera builds are 100% ES5.1 compliant. (according to opera dev-rel)
As much as I like
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
Latest Opera builds are 100% ES5.1 compliant. (according to opera dev-rel)
The latest externally visible Opera is Opera 12 alpha build 1116
Amen to that. JavaScript seems worse than any other language when it comes
to finding correct information on the web. For example, I trust
StackOverflow for many topics, but for JavaScript, it’s often shockingly
wrong. Half-truths are even worse than information that is completely wrong.
Dave, if nesting were out of the question and monocle-mustache operator always
looked like an object literal as they currently exist, would it still be as
vile? With that form, I'm a big fan.
/Rick
On Nov 11, 2011, at 3:13 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at
While I was admiring the pros of its mutation, I overlooked how unclear it was
that a mutation was even occurring... Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
/Rick
On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:22 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Dave
snip
Use case 2: Avoid the length pitfall:
var arr = new Array().init(5); // same as [5]
See: Array.of()
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:array_extras
snip
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
snip
Let's argue about specifics or we'll get nowhere. Do you think Irakli's
selfish.js extend (
https://github.com/Gozala/selfish/blob/master/selfish.js) is the way to
go, or Prototype's quite different form?
On Nov 13, 2011, at 5:08 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
Neither of them are fit for standardization. Selfish and Prototype are both
incapable of correctly deep copying arrays or objects,
Why does it matter that they don't deep copy? Deep copying is a difficult
problem
A few more thoughts...
On Nov 13, 2011, at 5:08 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
Neither of them are fit for standardization. Selfish and Prototype are both
incapable of correctly deep copying arrays or objects,
Why does it matter that they don't deep copy? Deep copying is a
On Nov 13, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
However having a deep copy mechanism that works without obscure edge-cases
would be great.
Can you be specific? What obscure edge cases have you previously encountered?
I don't have a list at hand, last time we
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:48 AM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
[snip]
Sorry I don't understand. Every function which accepts object
references and embeds its arguments in [[Prototype]] (either in the
return value or the instance created from the return value) faces the
Irakli, pull request for the tests: https://github.com/Gozala/selfish/pull/1
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, 2011-11-14 at 10:42 , Rick Waldron wrote:
The tests I wrote for Selfish illustrate that it also has this behaviour,
but is more
You keep bringing in various extend alternatives, but these are separate
from classes. Yes, even in the case when the class body is non-empty: in
that event the elements define properties on the new class prototype
object, which shadow any properties on the base class prototype object.
But do they need syntax, or just de-jure codification as built-in library
code after de-facto standardization? I think the latter.
Thanks for the clarification; when that discussion comes, I'll revive my
points.
Rick
___
es-discuss mailing list
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.comwrote:
Array destructuring and length:
let [a, b, c, d, ... r] = {2: 3} | [1, 2]
Obvious: a is 1; b is 2.
What are c, d, and r?
c = 2.
d = undefined.
r = empty.
Fixed property destructuring doesn't rely on length.
Allen,
Yes, this makes sense and is desirable. ( the rationale being that the word
new in new Point can be connected to what is going to happen when the
code in new(){ ... } is executed )
Rick
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Nov 19, 2011, at
Q. We don't use option parameter like that in JS (see previous point for
actual example)
Using an object-as-option parameter is a very common API design pattern in
real-world JavaScript today - why anyone would say otherwise is
confounding.
Rick
, Rick Waldron wrote:
Q. We don't use option parameter like that in JS (see previous point for
actual example)
Using an object-as-option parameter is a very common API design pattern in
real-world JavaScript today - why anyone would say otherwise is
confounding.
Right. For example
Speaking on behalf of real world web developers, the opposition to
Globalization is that it's unnecessarily long. This is a long standing
problem with APIs that are designed by people that don't have to use them
everyday.
___
es-discuss mailing list
On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:04 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 01/12/2011 08:47, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
Let's say this is an attempt to bring some new, easy to implement,
method for the native Object.prototype
Specially about forEach, the most used Array.prototype method out
I also still support a single object API exactly as Nicholas mentioned.
Rick
On Dec 9, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Nicholas C. Zakas standa...@nczconsulting.com
wrote:
I'm still holding out hope for a Locale object that handles everything. :)
Other than that, I think you have covered everything else.
Mark, It was coined by Remy Sharp
http://remysharp.com/2010/10/08/what-is-a-polyfill/
...I still don't understand how it differs from shim
Rick
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
IIRC, the block lambda proposal covers this (pun might be intended)
window.foo = function() {
console.log(hi!);
};
window.addEventListener('load', {||
this.foo(); // hi!
}, false);
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_lambda_revival#semantics
Rick
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Jason Orendorff
jason.orendo...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.com wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:string_extras
There is a proposal for String.prototype.contains so why can't I
reason for a built-in. This
is a no-brainer for ES6 IMHO.
/be
- Original Message -
From: Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
To: Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
Cc: es-discuss es-discuss@mozilla.org
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 2:28:28 PM
Subject: Re
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
({ define: typeof define === function
? define // browser
: function(F) { F(require,exports,module) } }). // Node.js
define(function (require, exports, module) {
// Node.js module code
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
I like it, it indeed looks very logical, however it's a bit controversial
that we need to create temporary array object to get one that we want.
Is the controversy editorial or fact, because the following
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Adam Shannon a...@ashannon.us wrote:
Another thing to think about is that .repeat (both on String and
Array) will be used a lot in production. So it would make sense for
each solution to be optimized for their specific case. It doesn't make
sense to slow down
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
I like it, it indeed looks very logical, however it's a bit
controversial
that we need
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo+mozilla@medikoo.com wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Mariusz Nowak
medikoo
I think it's fairly common for range implementations to provide an optional
`step` parameter
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
On Jan 3, 2012, at 15:46 , Greg Smith wrote:
What is the use case for .repeat? Trying to imagine some code where I'd
need it
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com wrote:
I think step should be 0, and step towards end:
Array.range({start: 5, end: 0, step: 2}) - 5, 3, 1
This would be an unfortunate limitation, considering real world impl's
allow negative numbers...
From the perspective of someone who writes JS every day, the parens look
and feel right.
Dave, you asked for some example code, this is actually from task.js:
https://gist.github.com/e4e0e349f9cf35ad3370
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:09 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jan 12,
This one is from https://github.com/ecto/duino/blob/master/lib/board.js and
has more real world uses
https://gist.github.com/d2c8fcbab5a3da4c4dae
Rick
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
From the perspective of someone who writes JS every day
FWIW, After working through the example gists that I created last night, my
opinion changed about the look of Block Lambda's with pipes. As others on
the list have said previously and is now very clear to me, pipes provide a
very distinct visual cue this is a block lambda, expect X to happen here
Potential issues
- subset of JSON is too restricted to be useful
This alone seems like a deal-breaker/non-starter. How would you copy
methods? Forgetting about cyclic reference exceptions for a moment:
var o = {
s: string,
n: 1,
a: [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ],
o: {
method: function( prop )
This is a perfect use case for the forth-coming module system (similar to
the way Globalization is being developed). Dave Herman and I had a brief
over Twitter exchange that began with my desire for a migration of
parseInt and parseFloat to Math, which I followed with a suggestion to do
the same
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
Potential issues
- subset of JSON is too restricted to be useful
This alone seems like a deal-breaker/non-starter. How would you copy
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Wes Garland w...@page.ca wrote:
On 22 January 2012 16:05, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea here is that methods do not belong in data structures (clone
should be to efficiently clone data).
Method vs. Property is a false dichotomy in
Node.js does *not* conform. Not at all. Not only it doesn't clamp to 4ms
(which happens to be a good thing, IMO), but its timers often fire out of
order !
Is there a reference or test case you can cite for this? Thanks!
Rick
___
es-discuss
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
On 22 January 2012 18:52, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
SpiderMonkey implementation landed today. I was looking over the
1 - 100 of 938 matches
Mail list logo
