My thoughts for what they are worth:
The semantics for const in Harmony are likely to be silently different
in Harmony from the semantics it has in non-strict current
implementations. (In particular the current const is hoisted to the
surrounding function, whereas the one in Harmony won't, so
On 14.10.2010 4:14, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Also I think now, that what was named as pros, i.e. ability to have
funargs and call/apply invariants, in real, not so pros. Because
users more likely want to catch exactly missing methods (if you
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Erik Corry wrote:
The semantics for const in Harmony are likely to be silently different
in Harmony from the semantics it has in non-strict current
implementations. (In particular the current const is hoisted to the
surrounding function, whereas the one in
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Recently, I met with the Google V8 team for two full days. One message that
came through loud and clear, that I said I would relay to the list, is
please, no more
On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Recently, I met with the Google V8 team for two full days. One message that
came through loud and clear, that I
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 14.10.2010 4:14, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Also I think now, that what was named as pros, i.e. ability to have funargs
and call/apply invariants, in real, not so pros. Because
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Recently, I met with the Google V8
Given script type=harmony as an opt-in, I'm puzzled about how it would
work anyway. Since it is per script, not per frame, presumably
script type=harmonyuse strict; var e1 = eval;/script
scriptuse strict; var e2 = eval;/script
script ...use strict; e1 === e2 /*results in true*/ /script
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:57 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Given script type=harmony as an opt-in, I'm puzzled about how it
would work anyway. Since it is per script, not per frame, presumably
script type=harmonyuse strict; var e1 = eval;/script
scriptuse strict; var e2 =
On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Mark S.
On Oct 14, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I can we why it seems that I was implying that, but I'm making more modular
arguments than that.
I appreciate modular arguments and expect no less from you :-). But however
modular, the bigger issues I keep harping on remain. Still, this is
On Oct 14, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I will address the more general more modes and compatibility direction
questions for later messages.
Please, let's get to this. Otherwise more-modular arguments about use
harmony (which is still a mode, I note!)
One more observation on
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Erik Corry wrote:
14. okt. 2010 17.11 skrev Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com:
Flush out means make developers find all such uses, and do what?
Replace them with var, making whatever other changes are needed to
keep the program running.
Most developers I know
On 10/14/2010 08:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Thus there is already one bit of opt-in versioning state in ES5, which must be
carried from direct eval's caller to callee.
SpiderMonkey currently does this, but fairly shortly (I have patches) it will
not. The eval *function*'s implementation
On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 10/14/2010 08:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Thus there is already one bit of opt-in versioning state in ES5, which must
be carried from direct eval's caller to callee.
SpiderMonkey currently does this,
I wasn't describing any implementation,
On 14.10.2010 19:38, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 14.10.2010 4:14, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Also I think now, that what was named as pros, i.e. ability to have funargs and
call/apply
On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Fixing this is possible too, if I can take liberties:
script-if type=application/ecmascript;version=6
// new.js inline-exanded here
On Oct 14, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
My priors (before studying the thread closely):
- I don't like modes.
It will be simpler and shorten correspondence for those who *do* like modes to
say so.
crickets
- If mode switching is necessary, I prefer in-band mode
On 10/14/10 08:11, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Erik Corry wrote:
The semantics for const in Harmony are likely to be silently different
in Harmony from the semantics it has in non-strict current
implementations. (In particular the current const is hoisted to the
19 matches
Mail list logo
