I've noticed that the ecmascript.org home page has some things that
seem outdated, such as evolutionary programming. It would be great
to see an update to point to the ES 3.1 and Harmony Drafts (in HTML
would be great).
Thanks,
Garrett
___
Es-discuss
2008/8/21 Allen Wirfs-Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At the Thursday, August 21, ES3.1 design conference call we debated two
decision points relating to property attributes but did not reach consensus
on either item. There are strong points on each side of these issues but so
far too few
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Ingvar von Schoultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
,---
| [[Flexible]] boolean If true, attempts to change the attributes
| of the property, or to delete the property, will succeed.
`---
Ignore sealed, that word adds confusion
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 24, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Aug 24, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
[snip]
Others on this list should comment on
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, let's settle the hash over whether any desugaring without
extensions such as return-to-label, reformed lexical scope, tamed
this, banished arguments,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brendan Eich skrev:
On Sep 5, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
This goes back to ES1. In Netscape's original JS implementation, I
reported an error which stopped the script on assignment to read-only
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 3:08 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
I have a question about the Function constructor algorithm:
1. Let P be the empty string.
2. If no arguments were given, let body be the empty string and go to step
13.
Would it be OK to just
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 Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need to spec Function.prototype.bind in our funny spec language.
Anyone care to contribute a draft?
The simplest way to specify this
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
The question I have is about the internal [[DefaultValue]] function.
When [[DefaultValue]] is called with hint String, it first looks for a
toString method. This seems strange because every native object would
have a toString method in the prototype chain.
To get the [[DefaultValue]](String) to
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Mike Shaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/9/18 Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK. I think I got what you're saying now. I've taken the consideration
that |arguments| may be deprecated. I
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
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Erik Arvidsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:41, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/9/18 Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is really no point in exposing the two different cases in a
spec. A spec should describe
2008/9/24 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Michael wrote:
Maciej wrote:
I'm not sure what you are getting at. a[1] and a[1.000] refer to the
same property in ECMAScript, but a[1m] and a[1.000m] would not. Are
you saying this isn't a problem?
This is not
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Mike Shaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/11/14 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Specifically, we expose a filter property on CSSStyleDeclaration, in
support of the SVG filter CSS property. However, many sites test for
filter to detect support for MSIE's
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Blake Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/15/2008 09:40 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Standardizing an MSIE property that works differently than in MSIE
creates compatibility problems on the web. A better alternative would
be to use a different property name
2009/1/24 Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there a way to write make without using eval so that the
constructor is called with an arbitrary number of arguments?
In Harmony you'll be able to use the ...
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
No offense, but that is some ugly code.
Indeed. We wouldn't have written it if the language didn't force us to.
[...]
To supply varargs
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The deeper problem here is that ES specs to date -- including the
draft ES3.1 spec -- have not yet admitted the existence of multiple
global objects. We
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:01 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood
david.hopw...@industrial-designers.co.uk wrote:
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
memo...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd like to use link(obj, target).
E.g.
a = 10;
link(b, a);
a++;
b++;
print(b);
// output: 12
That would require a catchall
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Herman Venter wrote:
Finally, there is another approach to resolving this issue. Define a new
global function, parseInteger, that does the right thing and relegate
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Agree, but let's hear from the Obj-J folks.
Have you looked at the source code?
Garrett
___
Es-discuss mailing list
. Otherwise: Let's hear from the Obj-J folks anyway,
the source does not speak or think.
/be
On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Agree, but let's hear
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
You can use __defineGetter__ and __defineSetter__ on window in current
browsers (excluding IE). In ES3.1 you can use Object.defineProperty
instead.
Memolus does not say what he needs this for, but it sounds even
some slack for not being at his
most articulate.
Sorry, I think the code says enough.
Garrett
On 8 Mar, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Memolus does not say what he needs this for, but it sounds even more
ludicrous than the recent discussion to allow [[Writable]] name to
anonymous
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 8, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I have another concern about the potential interactions between the
proposed name property and toString. Apparently, there is a known use case
of eval'ing the result
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Juriy Zaytsev kan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 8:29 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
[...]
[...]
Possible alternative:-
Function.create( name, fun[, context] );
I can't think of a better alternative at the moment. What's weird about such
notation
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:31 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood
david.hopw...@industrial-designers.co.uk wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
[...]
Maciej' Function.create proposal:-
Function.create([Foo bar], param1, param2, code(); goes(); here(););
[...]
Possible alternative:-
Function.create( name
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
[overlong cited text cut -- please do that when replying. /be]
OK.
What text in the link you give made you think anything of the sort? I see
no
use of internally
One statement that comes up a lot on comp.lang.javascript is don't
trust host objects. There cases where [[ToBoolean]], [[Put]], and
[[Get]] throws in IE, but also in Firefox where the property is
implemented as a getter, with no setter.
The implementation is responsible for ensuring the
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
The ES specification implicitly defines such an interface. It is
essentially, the union of the requirements that an object must support if it
is going to work correctly with the specified generic array
There seems to be a lot of controversy on how to properly check if
something should be callable. There isn't any way to determine that in
ES3.
The internal IsCallable determines if an object has a [[Call]] property.
Will that be available as a language feature, not internal?
For example:-
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Mark S. Millererig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
Not in ES5. Generally checking that typeof x === 'function' is a close
approximation. ES5 (11.4.3) requires that both native (ie,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Adam Pellerapel...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Douglas Crockford writes:
Adam Peller scripsit:
I don't feel strongly on this, but it does strike me as odd that
a function intended to avoid culturally-sensitive output would use
an English phrase. I'd lean towards
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Mike Wilson wrote:
Jason Orendorff wrote:
Eeuuurgh. In that case, what David-Sarah said.
What did he say?
He said don't do that, to paraphrase. Full quote:
The 'with' can be in
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Isn't it funny how something that seems small can have such a large
effect? This misfeature doesn't seem to have a good role or use cases.
It seems a bit like the callable
ES5 Committee,
In Function.prototype.toString, the representation should be a
Function Definition. The current text requires a
FunctionDeclaration. Many (if not most) implementations today, do
not follow the standard in the following cases:
1) anonymous function
2) native code
Example:-
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:52 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
ES5 Committee,
In Function.prototype.toString, the representation should be a
Function Definition. The current text requires a
FunctionDeclaration. Many (if not most
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
How?
javascript: alert(function(){})
Safari 4 elerts:
function () {}
The current specification doesn't allow that.
Why not?
The current specification requires the result of
Function.prototype.toString to be a
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
As usual at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft
Noon Tuesday US Pacific coast time is about the latest I can receive any new
issues and get them resolved in time
[[Construct]] of Function.prototype is not standardized.
The definition of Function.prototype does not define the expected
behavior for [[Call]] or [[Construct]]. Instead, there is a
description of what happens when it is invoked:
| 15.3.4 Properties of the Function Prototype Object
| The
The ES5 Specification mentions clauses in many places (e.g. Clause
10.). This seems unclear. Is a clause the same thing as a
section? Why the double terminology?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Static Array and String Generics was an ES4 proposal[0], and is
implemented in Mozilla JavaScript
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
The static generic versions of these functions were discussed during the
development of ES5 but nobody advocated strongly for their inclusions.
My personal opinion is that having what appears to be
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Mike Wilson mike...@hotmail.com wrote:
Mark S. Miller wrote:
If we're looking for a convention that is
* does not admit any legacy ES3R non-array non-host objects (to prevent
false positives)
No native ES objects?
* does easily allow ES5 programmers to
[[HasOwnProperty]] is mentioned in one place in the spec: s 15.4.4.11
Array.prototype.sort (comparefn).
There is no mention of [[HasOwnProperty]] anywhere else.
I also see a [[GetOwnProperty]] definition in Table 8 and a definition
for own property (s. 4.3.30).
Is there a difference between
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Mike Wilson mike...@hotmail.com wrote:
Mark S. Miller wrote:
If we're looking for a convention
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
wrote:
Are we really this stuck? Can anyone think of a reliable, portable
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/13 Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/12 Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Mark S. Miller
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/14 Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/13 Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Mike Samuel
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Static Array and String Generics was an ES4 proposal[0], and is
implemented in Mozilla JavaScript 1.6[1].
What are the plans for including Array and String Generics
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 08:43, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
ES4 since Waldemar's 1998-era JS2 work was concerned with the problem of
versioning APIs implied by (1) greatly, and not just adding
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
Unfortunately there are use case (although limited) that cannot be solved
without a mutable __proto__. Extending built *classes* is one such use case.
function HelloElement() {
var el =
Moving this discussion to the (hopefully) non-censored es-discuss.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi,
the DAP WG has a use case (calendars) in which it is needed for date objects
to keep their timezone information around, but the ES Date object doesn't.
Why does the specification state Error instances have no special properties?
The ES5 specification states:
| 15.11.5 Properties of Error Instances
| Error instances inherit properties from the Error prototype
| object and their [[Class]] internal property value is
| Error. Error instances have
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Alex Russell a...@dojotoolkit.org wrote:
Some small, pre-colored panels for the shed. Given that these are mostly
matters of syntax and not semantics, please believe me when I suggest that
the warts discussed herein present sharp edges that should be rounded
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2010, at 5:33 PM, Jürg Lehni wrote:
[...]
Yes, jQuery nicely avoids the whole prototype issue.
What do the spec contributors have to say about scripts that modify built-ins?
The concept don't modify objects
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 1, 2010, at 3:28 AM, Jürg Lehni wrote:
On 1 May 2010, at 01:50, Brendan Eich wrote:
[...]
Odd, that is neither fish nor fowl. Does any other library have such a bind?
Anyway, Moo was not around when TC39 was
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
It could be that we missed a chance to add Function.bind(callable,
thisObj,
argsArray). Adding such a static method might have provided the desired
common utility
Where is the right place to report errata in the ES5 specification?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 15:19, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Where is the right place to report errata in the ES5
Grammar
Ok, got it.
Allen
-Original Message-
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:32 PM
To: Mark S. Miller
Cc: es5-disc...@mozilla.org; es-discuss; Erik Arvidsson
Subject: Re: Where
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic vladi...@mozilla.com
wrote:
This is difficult to do, given the goals of typed arrays -- they wouldn't
behave like normal Arrays in most meaningful ways. At the core,
Today I looked for a good json regexp tester and finding nothing,
decided to write one.
The strategy that occurred to me was to first define a regex for the
literal components (ES5 lumps literal value into the JSONValue
alongside JSONObject and JSONArray). That way, I could reuse the
literal
On 6/8/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2010, at 8:46 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
[...]
IF anyone has a correct JSON parser, I would appreciate it. Also, are
there any good test suites for JSON?
I spent quite a bit of time ensuring JSC's JSON parser exactly matched the
spec
On 6/10/10, Sigbjorn Finne sigbjorn.fi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Garrett,
On 6/9/2010 05:46, Garrett Smith wrote:
...
IF anyone has a correct JSON parser, I would appreciate it. Also, are
there any good test suites for JSON?
http://testsuites.opera.com/JSON/ is one. Hallvord Steen has
On 6/3/09, Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
JSON.parse([010])
should be an error, per spec. Nobody follows the spec though...
As I read them neither the RFC or the current ES5 JSON grammar recognize
[010] as a valid JSON form, so according to the ES5
On 6/22/10, Luke Smith lsm...@lucassmith.name wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com
wrote:
[...]
As far as I can tell, all the major browsers accept tabs, as
I have a question reqarding [[Class]] property as defined In ES5:
| The value of the [[Class]] internal property of a host object
| may be any String value except one of Arguments, Array,
| Boolean, Date, Error, Function, JSON, Math, Number,
| Object, RegExp, and String
May it be something other
On 7/16/10, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Garrett Smith
dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
I have a question reqarding [[Class]] property as defined In ES5:
| The value of the [[Class]] internal property of a host object
| may be any String value except
On 7/17/10, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
[+es5-discuss as a possible errata issue arises below]
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Garrett Smith
dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
On 7/16/10, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Garrett Smith
On 7/18/10, Allen Wirfs-Brock allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
The more important issue is our intent regarding the definitions of
host and native objects.
First regarding, alert in IE. Historically it is what it is and nobody
should make any assumptions concerning the future based
On 7/22/10, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:16 PM, David Flanagan
da...@davidflanagan.comwrote:
Allen,
The host vs. native distinction has long bothered me as well. Thanks for
a
particularly lucid explanation. In the next edition of the spec, perhaps
On 7/25/10, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
The problem is that as long as ASI exists, one will often see working code
such as this, since it does usually
On 10/10/10, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
My interpretation is that the spec in this regard is consistent with
reality as intended and is not an ass.
(Somewhat disconcerting to hear hints of the spec being called an ass.)
Could
On 10/10/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/10, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
[...]
Here I use native functions to mean either the built-in functions of
ES5
clause 15, or the DOM built-in functions
On 10/10/10, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Garrett Smith
dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
[...]
And that brings me to my next point: AIUI, host objects have two
types. We discussed this before...
(searching archives...)
| The specification allows
On 11/11/10, Michael Day mike...@yeslogic.com wrote:
Hi Brendan and Allen,
Thanks for the pointers.
So for Harmony, we are reclaiming function in block (must be a direct
child of a braced block) to bind a block-local name on block entry (so
hoisting lives, but only to top of block -- so you
On 12/20/10, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the Private Names
proposal was to support private fields for objects. While that may be a
goal of some participants in the discussion, it is not what I would state as
the goal.
On 1/5/11, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
[...]
the function expression form has a well-defined meaning anywhere including
in the compound statement blocks such as if-statements. The meaning of the
latter two declaration forms are not defined by the standard when they occur
On 2/3/11, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
I was browsing Kangax's strict mode test result page
(http://kangax.github.com/es5-compat-table/strict-mode/ ) and I noticed that
he listed the recognition of a use strict directive of a event handler as a
non-standard feature that he
On 2/3/11, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Regarding the call language, it would probably be best if it was described
in terms of invoking the [[Call]] internal method of the handler's function
object. However, that might be unnecessary if if the WebIDL ECMASCript
binding makes
On 3/17/11, Juriy Zaytsev kan...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for bringing this quirk to the surface. I remember being puzzled by
the presence of this wording in HTML5 spec but never got a chance to do
anything about it.
By non-standard I meant not part of ECMA-262 standard (not that it's not
On 3/18/11, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote:
There's LOTS of sites out there that still (unfortunately) do unsafe
overwriting/overloading of the native's prototypes. For instance, just a few
months ago, I ran across a site that was creating a Array.prototype.push()
implementation that was
On 3/22/11, Joshua Bell j...@lindenlab.com wrote:
I was noodling with a (toy) compiler-to-JS for a (dead) language that
supports error handlers for two boundary conditions - stack depth exceeded
out of memory - and noticed that the relevant behavior in JS is not standard
across browsers. Has
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
javascript: alert(new InternalError(Got on tha inside, bitch!));
Hrm. seems odd to expose the constructor publicly.
Necessary to permit instanceof testing
Bad quoting made it confusing, but I was (am) right. Edited as intended below:
On 3/23/11, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
javascript: alert(new
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bad quoting made it confusing, but I was (am) right. Edited as intended
below:
On 3/23/11, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/23/11, Mike Shaver
On 4/11/11, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote:
Like most Javascript programmers, I have tended to follow
a simple rule for functions using 'this': eta-expand method
selections, use .bind, or get into trouble.
That is unnecessary and inefficient. Instead, I use the following algorithm:
On 4/11/11, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote:
Like most Javascript programmers, I have tended to follow
a simple rule for functions using 'this': eta-expand method
selections, use .bind, or get into trouble.
That is unnecessary, inefficient, and adds clutter.
That most JavaScript
On 4/13/11, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote:
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator --
the proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an
expression due to conditional expressions (?:).
The default operator doesn't address a significant
On 4/14/11, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
There is no ambiguity problem with ? followed by . and then (with whitespace
allowed, of course) an IdentifierName. We need the lookahead to an
identifier-name starting-character to avoid this:
var tolerance = big ?.1:.01;
So we can't
On 4/17/11, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
[TLDR]
ASI is not going to be removed. I don't know why you think it could be.
Why not? Iif developers would stop doing that then eventually, can't
it be removed?
It is not hard at all to
On 4/17/11, Mike Ratcliffe mratcli...@mozilla.com wrote:
I remember going over a few hundred thousand lines of JavaScript and adding
semicolons because I had decided to minify it. I also remember that for
months I was receiving bug reports from sections of code where I had missed
the
On 4/17/11, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Mike Ratcliffe wrote:
...
Personally I would welcome some kind of option to disable ASI with open
arms. Garrett's strict mode warning idea makes sense to me but I am fairly
certain that not everybody
On 4/17/11, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4/17/11, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
[TLDR]
ASI is not going to be removed. I don't know
On 4/17/11, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.com wrote:
do modern javascript implementations actually insert semicolons?
Function.prototype.toString says yes.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On 4/17/11, Wes Garland w...@page.ca wrote:
On 17 April 2011 20:09, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
Function.prototype.toString says yes.
That's not a really valid evaluation IMO. At least in mozilla's case, the
semi colon appears in this by virtue of the bytecode decompiler
On 4/18/11, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote:
The only places where semicolons are ever used in the Node.js package
manager are in the 'for' loops headers and at the *beginning* of the lines
that would be interpreted incorrectly because of the lack of the semicolon
at the end of the
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
