On 12/10/11 01:32, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Which style do you think I should use in the specification?
On the whole, I don't think it matters. I don't think it's really the
right way to solve the problem (finding cross-referenced functions).
What would be (far) better, IMO, is to link cross-
On Oct 12, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Michael Dyck wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> The doc version of the latest stable draft is always posted at
>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts I can
>> also start to post a docx version if there are people that want them.
>
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The doc version of the latest stable draft is always posted
at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts
I can also start to post a docx version if there are people that want
them.
Yes, please.
Currently, to get something I can deal with,
>
> The formal standards process is still targeted towards producing paper
> documents and Ecma currently requires that these documents be delivered in
> MS Word format and follow specific styling guidelines (there is what is
> essentially an ISO standard for standards that we are supposed to follo
On Oct 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
> So does chrome. If you view-source on it it appears to be binary -- and just
> as I suspected, it's actually just a zip (very much like odf). So for the
> curious, just download, change the extension to .zip and poke around to see
> if it's o
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Claus Reinke wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> Assuming, of course, that the exported XML is not completely
>> unreadable!-)
>>
>
> It will be, at least t
On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Claus Reinke wrote:
> ...
>
> Assuming, of course, that the exported XML is not completely
> unreadable!-)
>
> It will be, at least to humans :)
>
> But it doesn't need to be -- there'd still be a huge
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Claus Reinke wrote:
> [sorry for the incomplete message earlier - keyboard glitch]
>
>
> 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
[sorry for the incomplete message earlier - keyboard glitch]
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
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 simplif
On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> 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 mak
On 12 October 2011 18:34, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_drafts&cache=cache&media=harmony:11.1.5-alternatives-2.pdf
> has a 5th alternative version that follows your suggested structure. Note
> that I classified semantic functi
On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
> The third version seems far superior. It makes a proper, visible
> separation between static semantics and dynamic semantics, which is
> very helpful, and standard practice as well.
#3 was also my favorite from the first batch
>
> In fac
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 12 October 2011 02:32, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> The experiments are shown
> in http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_drafts&cache=cache&media=harmony:11.1.5-alternatives.pdf
> This contains four versions of section 11.5.1 (Object literals). Each
> section i
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I'm personally finding it harder to find things in the current draft.
To fix this I've been experimenting with several different organizations
and I would like some feedback on the alternative I've come up with.
I think the third version is the most readable. The addi
The "ES6" specification has more complicated language constructs that require
more verbose specification language for many constructs. One of the techniques
I'm using is to have more semantic functions over grammar productions . The
readability of the specification seems to be quite sensitive t
17 matches
Mail list logo
