That's related to a feature I have on my list to implement:
cross-referencing actions in a step-through debugger/action record with
their specific origin in the spec. So as you step into a function, see a
sidebar scrolling by with Function Declaration Instantiation, multiple hits
on
It's a learning experience for me. I'm not formally trained, but I learn
quickly when I realize there's a thing to learn.
I've built a thing thing that is now in need of a.) refinement, b.)
optimization, and c.) usable interfaces built on it. I have intentions to
build more than already exists,
Language specification is a difficult task, especially when handling a
complex language, legacy spec style, and wide variety of audience
background, not to mention a committee with lots of feedback and opinions.
We are very lucky that Allen does the job he does.
Yes. That doesn't mean he should
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote:
if you were browsing the spec trying to figure out what
super is about in JS, how much of the spec would you have to
read to answer that question, and how many readers succeed?
This is a very clear statement of the
Is 'super' currently limited to method bodies, excluding local functions?
Given that 'this' is lexical in arrow functions, I expected any enclosing
'super' to be available, as well, but I cannot confirm this from the spec.
Yes, clearly super should be able to be used in an arrow function that
That's related to a feature I have on my list to implement:
cross-referencing actions in a step-through debugger/action record with
their specific origin in the spec. So as you step into a function, see a
sidebar scrolling by with Function Declaration Instantiation, multiple hits
on
On Dec 4, 2012 4:59 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote:
ES, for all its faults, has a spec on the formal side -which is a very
good thing!- but unfortunately also on the not directly readable side.
The reason is that the spec is essentially a reference implementation -
even
Claus Reinke wrote:
Like everyone else on this list, I have grown familiar with the current
spec - not as familiar as tc39 members, but enough to find answers
to questions when I need them.
But with the evolving drafts of the new spec, I'm back in the situation
most JS coders are wrt the
Herby Vojčík wrote:
WHY / WHAT / HOW sections (with only HOW being normative)?
I've said it before: ECMA-357 (E4X) tried this and all it did was make
more bug habitat in the informative sections, and confuse implementors
who treated prose as normative and took its differences not as bugs,
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
Language specification is a difficult task, especially when handling a
complex language, legacy spec style, and wide variety of audience background,
not to mention a committee with lots of feedback and opinions. We are
There is a long history of people publishing annotated versions of language
standards that add informative materials. The Ecma copyright even explicitly
allows for this.
I think I've said before that there is an opportunity here for somebody to run
with this idea for ECMAScript. You don't
I made a somewhat moreinterestling colored and (to me) more readable
version of the ES6 spec (previous one from last) using jorendorff's html
rendition as a foundation. Some may find this interesting, and some may be
blinded for life: http://benvie.github.com/es-spec-html/
On Tue, Dec 4,
On Dec 4, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
I made a somewhat moreinterestling colored and (to me) more readable
version of the ES6 spec (previous one from last) using jorendorff's html
rendition as a foundation. Some may find this interesting, and some may be
blinded for life:
Is 'super' currently limited to method bodies, excluding local functions?
super is limited to ClassBody
Yes, the question is about arrow functions in ClassBody.
Given that 'this' is lexical in arrow functions, I expected any enclosing
'super' to be available, as well, but I cannot confirm
Is 'super' currently limited to method bodies, excluding local functions?
Given that 'this' is lexical in arrow functions, I expected any enclosing
'super' to be available, as well, but I cannot confirm this from the spec.
Yes, clearly super should be able to be used in an arrow function that
On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
Is 'super' currently limited to method bodies, excluding local functions?
Given that 'this' is lexical in arrow functions, I expected any enclosing
'super' to be available, as well, but I cannot confirm this from the spec.
Yes, clearly super
@mozilla.org
Subject: lexical 'super' in arrow functions?
Is 'super' currently limited to method bodies, excluding local functions?
super is limited to ClassBody
Given that 'this' is lexical in arrow functions, I expected any enclosing
'super' to be available, as well, but I cannot confirm
'super' in arrow functions?
Is 'super' currently limited to method bodies, excluding local functions?
Given that 'this' is lexical in arrow functions, I expected any enclosing
'super' to be available, as well, but I cannot confirm this from the spec.
Yes, clearly super should be able to be used
18 matches
Mail list logo
