On 2008-09-19, at 09:18EDT, Mike Shaver wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If a thrown native object did not already have a stack, what is the
harm in adding one?
What should be done with a sealed object that's thrown?
Rather than throwing a
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Mike Shaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead, it would be more useful for all thrown objects to get a stack
property, unless the object already had one.
This has been proposed before in
El 14/09/2008, a las 21:30, Mark S. Miller escribió:
The arguments object itself is often passed in order for function F to
give function G access to the argument list F with which was called.
This seemingly innocent operation should not also inadvertently
provide G with the ability to call
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Jorge Chamorro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El 14/09/2008, a las 21:30, Mark S. Miller escribió:
The arguments object itself is often passed in order for function F to
give function G access to the argument list F with which was called.
This seemingly innocent
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Jon Zeppieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any magically bound variable breaks TC. The expression
callee
should have the same meaning as
(function() { return callee; })()
...and it clearly does not.
True, but it doesn't work for arguments or
El 15/09/2008, a las 22:32, Jon Zeppieri escribió:
IOW, could we have instead a ('standalone') 'callee' property (that
isn't to be innocently passed on) ?
...as a property of what?
The activation object of the execution context.
--
Jorge.
___
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Jorge Chamorro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El 15/09/2008, a las 22:32, Jon Zeppieri escribió:
IOW, could we have instead a ('standalone') 'callee' property (that
isn't to be innocently passed on) ?
...as a property of what?
The activation object of the
On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
El 15/09/2008, a las 22:32, Jon Zeppieri escribió:
IOW, could we have instead a ('standalone') 'callee' property (that
isn't to be innocently passed on) ?
...as a property of what?
The activation object of the execution context.
I've
On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
Don't even get me started on activation 'objects'...
Nor me.
Mark, didn't you propose eliminating that language from the spec?
(Yup. https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-April/
006062.html)
I'm guessing that's not actually
El 15/09/2008, a las 23:23, Brendan Eich escribió:
On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
El 15/09/2008, a las 22:32, Jon Zeppieri escribió:
IOW, could we have instead a ('standalone') 'callee' property (that
isn't to be innocently passed on) ?
...as a property of what?
On Sep 15, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I agree with Mark about callee. Just say no, if we can wean folks off
of it.
2008/9/16 William Edney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Easier said than done. Not impossible (well, nothing's impossible),
but its very problematic.
There's a number of use
On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:21 AM, liorean wrote:
2008/9/16 William Edney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Could I do an assignment of the handler? Sure, but syntactically
suboptimal, IMHO.
Once JScript has fixed the function name scope bug, you could use
myElem.addEventListener(
'click',
We use it for debugging/backtrace. If it could be had in non-strict
or, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, by constructing an error
object.
(Actually, it looks like our current debug compile inserts it's own
annotation to maintain a backtrace. So apparently we don't _have_ to
have
Great -- good to have library authors / maintainers on this list.
I hold no brief for callee. The only issue in its favor is the cost of
migrating to strict mode. A new version of Prototype that loses
internal arguments.callee uses and is otherwise compatible helps.
Dojo and other Ajax folks
I found it convenient when writing MochiKit for the same reasons that
it's in Prototype but it would be rather simple to change things
around to use named references to functions or whatever else was
appropriate. It occurs 28 times in trunk.
-bob
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Brendan Eich
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Erik Arvidsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inside Google we have a few occurrences of arguments.callee. Some of
these are from Prototype, MochiKit, jQuery and other third party code.
I agree with Tobie regarding the 2 use cases but there is one more
related use
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to restrict 'arguments' in strict functions?
anticipation of ES-H-strict -- prohibit co-existence with splat
arguments.callee
joining? frozen?
If we were making the jump from ES3 directly to ES-Harmony, we
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to restrict 'arguments' in strict functions?
anticipation of ES-H-strict -- prohibit co-existence with splat
arguments.callee
joining?
On Sep 9, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Mark S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should strict 'arguments' be an array? I know we've over this before
and that strong reasons were presented why we couldn't do this.
But on
the ES3.1 phone call this
19 matches
Mail list logo
