Detached TypedArray access semantics

In the draft ES6 spec, getting or setting array indices on detached TypedArrays raises a TypeError. However, both V8 and SpiderMonkey seem to return undefined from reads and silently succeed on writes. These semantics have probably been shipping for some time. As an implementer, I'm not sure what

Value types, SIMD and standardization stages

At the last TC-39 meeting, the understanding I got was, it's OK to bring SIMD to Stage 4 before value types are there as long as we have a general understanding that value types are on track and will be consistent with SIMD. I have been looking into value types, and I believe they can be done in a

Getting SIMD.js into the TC39 repository

Hi Brian, ES-Discuss, The SIMD.js spec and polyfill still lives in John McCutchan's GitHub account. How can we transfer this to the TC39 account in accordance with ECMA's requirements? Thanks, Dan ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org

Re: Named Arrow Functions

) } }); 2015-08-11 21:26 GMT-03:00 Daniel Ehrenberg dehrenb...@chromium.org: In addition to being hard to parse in general, I don't think this would play very well with the async/await proposal https://tc39.github.io/ecmascript-asyncawait/ , which wants to have arrow functions like

Re: UInt8ClampedArray Bitwise operators?

, Daniel Ehrenberg little...@chromium.org wrote: Bits and bytes are fundamental to JavaScript too, which is why the language has, for a long time, included operations like , , , , |, ^ and ~ on Numbers, exposing the ability to manipulate 32-bit integers. This is comparable to what C provides

Re: Named Arrow Functions

In addition to being hard to parse in general, I don't think this would play very well with the async/await proposal https://tc39.github.io/ecmascript-asyncawait/ , which wants to have arrow functions like async (x) = ... Because we can't count on async as a keyword, your proposal would create

Re: UInt8ClampedArray Bitwise operators?

is that it increases complexity. What is the upside you have in mind to building it into the language? Have fun! Dan On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: Uint8ClampedArray is more of a historical artifact than something you should actually aim

Re: UInt8ClampedArray Bitwise operators?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Caitlin Potter caitpotte...@gmail.com wrote: Operator overloading or value types might make it look a lot prettier some day (though iirc element assessor overloading was off limits), but you could get pretty far by baking it into a compile-to-js language.

Re: Exponentiation operator precedence

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com wrote: On 08/24/2015 10:08, Jason Orendorff wrote: In math, -x² is -(x²), not (-x)². But as proposed for JS, -x**2 is (-x)**2. PHP, Python, Haskell, and D side with the traditional algebraic notation, against JS. Here's

Re: Weak Reference proposal

I think this proposal is currently at Stage 0, right? Do we typically put Stage 0 proposals on the TC39 GitHub? My understanding was that proposals typically get moved after Stage 2. Dan On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Dean Tribble wrote: > I have posted a stage 1 proposal