On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Why didn't you provide a isNeutered predicate?
Note that per
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-dom-interfaces.html#transferable
there's more objects that can be neutered. Once
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
below
On May 20, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May
After writing an ES6-ES5 compiler, I've come to the conclusion that ES5
*is* an intermediary language. For dynamic, duck-typed languages it's not
so bad.
I always found the Dart people's arguments the most persuasive:
https://www.dartlang.org/articles/why-not-bytecode/
Basically, any language
I have thought about the right semantics (and the issues) of the existential
operator.
user.getPlan?().value?.score;
The intended semantics of `?` is that, whenever its LHS evaluates to `null` or
`undefined`,
the evaluation of the whole expression (or subexpression) is interrupted and
On 21 May 2014 14:33, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about the right semantics (and the issues) of the existential
operator.
user.getPlan?().value?.score;
The intended semantics of `?` is that, whenever its LHS evaluates to `null`
or `undefined`,
the
On May 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
Finally, I note that the current Khronos spec. doesn't provide much
guidance in this regard. The thing it has that is most similar to the
other array methods is the 'subarray' method and it doesn't explicitly say
anything about
On May 21, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 21 May 2014 14:33, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about the right semantics (and the issues) of the existential
operator.
user.getPlan?().value?.score;
The intended semantics of `?` is that,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
Finally, I note that the current Khronos spec. doesn't provide much
guidance in this regard. The thing it has that is most similar to the
other array methods
On May 21, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
Finally, I note that the current Khronos spec. doesn't provide much
guidance in this regard.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
below
On May 20, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May 20,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@chromium.org wrote:
I think it would be weird if some of them fail hard and some would behave
as if the length is zero. Consistency is always good.
Why fail hard is more desirable?
It is desirable because it allows for more efficient
I think it is better to have one legacy method that behaves differently
from all the other (new) methods then to maintain consistency by
introducing 20+ new bug farms.
Is it too late (or too unexpected) for
aTypedArray.subarray(aNeuteredObject)to throw in new contexts (i.e.,
modules,
On May 21, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:
I think it is better to have one legacy method that behaves differently from
all the other (new) methods then to maintain consistency by introducing 20+
new bug farms.
Is it too late (or too unexpected) for
13 matches
Mail list logo
