In
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:simple_modules
it says:
Module declarations are only allowed at the top level of a script or
module, but for convenience, they can nest within top-level blocks, and
are hoisted to be in scope for the entire containing script or module.
Can
On 3/14/2011 10:08 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 14, 2011, at 11:50 PM, John J. Barton wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
However, there's no way for a generator function to return that instance,
because a generator function always implicitly returns a fresh generator
iterator when
On 11:59 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Moreover, forgot to mention. Passing the generator function
(g-function and g-object for shortness) as an argument for the
`Generator` constructor is not good for dynamically bound `this` value
(notice, that in Python's `self` is just a casual
On 11:59 AM, David Herman wrote:
P.S.:
A small change, e.g. can be to make next as a getter since it doesn't accept
arguments.
g.next; // 1
g.next; // 2
But, it's a cosmetic and actually not so needed change.
-1
The purpose of the next interface is to change the state of the iterator. A
On 11:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Nowadays the clamp is there because sites use |setTimeout(f, 0)| when
they really mean run this at 10Hz and if you run it with no delay
then they swamp your event loop and possible render wrong (e.g. the
text disappears before the user has a chance to read
On 3/20/2011 12:03 PM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
...
Multiple repeated calls to |setTimeout(f,0)| are bugs
I don't agree with that assertion at all. Two different functions
might queue up two different snippets to happen as soon as
possible, later, each of them using their own setTimeout(..., 0).
On 11:59 AM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
Brendan, you've asked for other coding examples where I use the
pattern of some variable being `undefined` or not to trigger different
behavior (that is, to use the variable or not). Here's two more:
Here are some examples from Firebug code:
Lazy object
On 4/14/2011 8:17 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 14, 2011, at 5:03 PM, John J. Barton wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
Brendan, you've asked for other coding examples where I use the pattern of some
variable being `undefined` or not to trigger different behavior (that is, to
use
P T Withington wrote:
On 2011-04-14, at 11:55, John J. Barton wrote:
Perhaps there is no better solution, but often I find that I want to say "call this chain of functions and use the bottom value, but if any of them return undefined, then just be undefined, don't get all p
Asen Bozhilov wrote:
Dmitry A. Soshnikov:
which in sugar form is:
var vars = context.getPanel?("html", true).getInspectorVars();
I don't think this is real use case. It seems like a design mistake.
Why would you check for existence "html" panel? If the "html" panel
On 4/15/2011 5:09 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
John J Barton:
The HTML tab you see in the Firebug tab set is just a picture, there is no
real HTML panel.
All of Firebug's panels are actuallydiv elements allocated on demand. So
the code above is saying:
If the user has ever used the HTML
On 11:59 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On May 10, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
I look at ECMAScript as serving four groups:
1. The beginners for whom the language was designed.
2. The web developers who owe their livelihoods to the language.
3. The scientists who will use the
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On May 17, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
And of course this would also make it harder for IDEs and such to give good first-class syntax highlighting here, because the syntax for this would be ambiguous with user-created stuff.
JavaScript's ability to close over variables in nesting scopes
sometimes surprises me. I'd like to be able to say function uses a
clean scope. Is there something like this in the works? Or maybe it
exists?
Thanks,
jjb
___
es-discuss mailing list
mean a scope with JavaScript built-ins only, no 'host'
functions, no |window| properties.
function walkTheWalk(position) {
use empty;
var from = parent.location; // error, should have said
position.parent, but it works?!?
}
--
kangax
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, John J Barton
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Mozilla has evalInSandbox built-ins.
Unfortunately I have quite a lot of experience with evalInSandbox.
We've talked about them, but no one has produced a strawman based on this
work. The module loader API:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:25 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Mozilla has evalInSandbox built-ins.
Unfortunately I have quite a lot of experience with evalInSandbox.
If you mean
I'm pretty puzzled by this discussion and I'm guessing other folks might be
puzzled as well. Since I understood node fibers as thread for Node, the
discussion I read is:
/be: You can have threads!
Mikeal: We don't want threads!
If I'm on the right track, then I should understand how this
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 2, 2011, at 2:26 PM, John J Barton wrote:
I'm pretty puzzled by this discussion and I'm guessing other folks might be
puzzled as well. Since I understood node fibers as thread for Node, the
discussion I read
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:15 PM, John J Barton wrote:
Ok I hope someone creates more tutorial information about generators. I
read about them and played around with some examples, but I did not come
away thinking positive
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:06 AM, John J Barton wrote:
As a reader I have to parse the function carefully to look for the 'yield'.
If I find one, then I know that this is not actually a function after all.
Then I need
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 9:36 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
Assuming I am understanding the idea, then my description above is also my
criticism: control and data flow is jumping around in unusual ways and
functions morph
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org wrote:
Some of the discussion on this thread amounts to IDEs work great for
typed languages so let's make JS typed. What if we started with
What would be great for JavaScript developers? Then we would not
waste a lot of time
From: François REMY fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:31:17 +0200
Subject: Re: IDE support?
Types are not only desirable to borrow concepts from current IDEs. We know
from DotNET that a language running in a VM can be pretty fast, close to a
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org wrote:
Some of the discussion on this thread amounts to IDEs work great for
typed languages so let's
Just to point out that Web Inspector in the Chrome browser has run
time dot completions (as does Firebug) and it has live JS and CSS
editing with save to file. I won't defend the user experience, that
needs work.
I tried and failed to convince one IDE team that starting from the
runtime tools was
[in JS] ...
and gives strictly more information (and more relevant information!)
sentence. I should have written static+dynamic gives strictly more
information.
Sorry about that -- not a profound point, but something that came out in the
exchange John J. Barton and I had about static program
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
... and it is imperative as all get-out.
I realize this is supposed to be common knowledge, but I would
appreciate a pointer to why 'imperitive' gets listed as a negative. In
my experience declarative is only good for toy
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Isn't it just a matter of referring to the property with super?
class Pirate {
get name() {
return Captn' + super.name;
}
}
just trying to understand: how is super different from __proto__?
jjb
, at 7:38 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Isn't it just a matter of referring to the property with super?
class Pirate {
get name() {
return Captn' + super.name;
}
}
just trying to understand: how is super different
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 1, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Then a super-call is always about letting this stay the same, but
finding a later method: If
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
As much as every JavaScript advocate usually cringes at the comparison
of JavaScript to Java, it is a little funny that right now I think
they are in a little bit of the same situation. The JVM and JavaScript
are
+1
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.comwrote:
Maybe it's time for me to chime in.
While I find it facilitating that so much meaning is being found in my
tweet I thought it might be productive to say what I actually meant by the
comment.
JavaScript's
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function. Instead of returning
the value that the body of the function returns, it returns a special
newly-created object.
Sorry, already you lost me ;-) I guess you mean the
In trying to update my JS approach I looked into 'traits'. I'm still on the
fence about using them at this stage, but MarkM was asking for feedback of
pretty much any kind so here is a little.
I believe I understand traits for the most part just from the info on the
Web site:
http://traitsjs.org/
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function. Instead
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/4 Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com
wrote:
No it doesn't.
Just walk the object graph starting from the root object and let the
,
and in those cases I think you might be better off without OOP anyway.
jjb
Cheers,
Tom
2011/10/5 John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
In trying to update my JS approach I looked into 'traits'. I'm still on
the fence about using them at this stage, but MarkM was asking for feedback
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com
wrote:
2011/10/4 Russell Leggett russell.legg
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:48 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks for the feedback, John.
I have to admit
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM, John
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Here again I am not sure how we ended up with this conversation but you
can
find a function able to extract properties and
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:49 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, John
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:18 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:49 AM, John J
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:56 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
In trying to update my JS approach I looked into 'traits'. I'm still on the
fence about using them at this stage, but MarkM was asking for feedback of
pretty much any kind so here is a little.
I believe I
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo
dopazo.j...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
Object.create does indeed require propertydescriptors as the second
argument. This is the easiest way to send meta-data like read-only.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:21 PM, John J Barton wrote:
I think what's missing is Object.extend:
http://www.prototypejs.org/api/object/extend
http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.extend/
http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dojo
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:02 PM, John J Barton wrote:
PrototypeJS (and Firebug) pre-date Object.keys() and .hasOwnProperty(),
hasOwnProperty was in ES3 in 1999. PrototypeJS is IIRC 2005-era. Firebug is
post-y2k.
so
repeated with less quotation
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:18 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com
wrote
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
You are a gmail user, I surmise. So are others. Gmail collapses cited text,
so you don't trim it. Those of us using other mail user agents then have to
wade through *pages* of cited text to find your replies, which
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Dupont mozi...@andrewdupont.netwrote:
(Keep in mind that the 80% use-case for this sort of thing is merging
default options with user-supplied options, at least in the code I write.
That's a simple case that usually involves merging two plain objects
Several people advocate Object.extend() that copies only own properties. I
don't understand why; I'll make the case for copying all properties.
At a call site I use, say
foo.bar();
Ordinarily I should not be concerned about details of bar()'s
implementation. In particular I should not be
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
*From: *John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
*Subject: **Re: Object.extends (was Re: traits feedback)*
*Date: *October 7, 2011 16:49:50 GMT+02:00
*To: *Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.com
*Cc: *John-David Dalton
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
If you do something like
var fuz = Object.extend(foo, {paper:'in', shoes:'my'});
Then fuz will get all properties of Object.prototype, again, as
duplicates. In the above, you are clearly most interested in what you
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/7 John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.dewrote:
If you do something like
var fuz = Object.extend(foo, {paper:'in', shoes:'my
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Sorry to be dense, but I still don't get it. How can an object have
duplicate properties? I understand that own properties override properties
on prototypes.
When you look at the object literal
var source = {
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I don’t see a simple way of “fixing” (property descriptors do have their
uses) Object.create().
Just allow the second argument to be property descriptor *or* object.
Problem: property descriptors are
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
...
I would prefer the name Object.copyOwnPropertiesTo(source, target) or
Object.copyOwnTo(source, target) to the name “extend” (which, to me,
suggests
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
*From: *Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
+1
Bottom line, I disagree with John J's initial premise about the path we
are on. I also am convinced that for all design choices we make(I'm not
just talking
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/6 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:02 PM, John J Barton wrote:
The traits philosophy is that, when merging objects, you want to see name
clashes flagged as exceptions (to prevent
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/10/6 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
On Oct 5
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Bob Nystrom wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.comwrote:
Here's an example:
let tree = [['a', 'b', 'c'], [['d', 'e'], 'f'], ['g']];
let inOrder =
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo
dopazo.j...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi! Is there anyone working on a Harmony transpiler besides Traceur?
I'd like to understand why Traceur is not suitable. As far as I understand
it was written to study new directions in JS.
jjb
It'd be really
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the reasons traceur is not suitable is that it's a product of google
and thus not neutral.
Traceur is not a product, I think that is pretty obvious. It's just a JS to
JS compiler written by some engineers very keen
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote:
We don't know what the standard will be so we need some why to try out
different features.
That's not how the committee has worked since 2008, and even before
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:47 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote:
We don't know what the standard
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
*From: *Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com
*Subject: **JS tools (was: Harmony transpilers)*
*Date: *October 11, 2011 21:53:58 GMT+02:00
*To: *Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
*Cc: *es-discuss@mozilla.org
There is
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:38 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have started a little experiment and I'd like to share it here.
_Context_
We've been taught that objects are attributes and methods. Consequently,
object clients can inspect attributes (though these are most
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 12, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Joe Developer wrote:
I think an important question here is:
Who are you actually trying to serve with your changes?
See the actual goals requirements and goals for ES Harmony at
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:38 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than properties, how about modeling events
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
But, some of them simply double the semantics
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.comwrote:
...
+1. My narrow view is entirely formed by working on and talking to (the wide
variety of) users of debuggers.
jjb
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
It's clear that if I am to follow any of Allen's posts I need to learn what
| means.
I looked through some of the email and the wiki, but I don't know what to
look for really.
I guess this is a binary operator, so we should be able to say operator
something. Furthermore it seems like the concept
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
..
My understanding of | is that it sets the [[prototype]] property and
nothing else. Consequently, I think that the semantics of Array |
function(...){} is to create a function with the prototype chain as
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
...
Object.getPrototypeOf is the get API in ES5. For the preset API we want
syntax at least, to avoid copying literals passed to a functional API. We
could have the
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
This all arises from the language used in the ES specification. For the
ES6 spec. I could, in theory, do a massive rename of [[Prototype]] to
something else. However, I'm not sure whether such a renaming at this
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:19 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
...
Object.getPrototypeOf is the get API
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:19 PM, John J Barton wrote
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 6:00 PM, John J Barton wrote:
Simply stated, the triangle operator lets you set the prototype of an
object if and only if that object has not yet been observably instantiated.
It's a small tradeoff
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 3:55 PM, John J Barton wrote:
Suppose for a moment we allowed objects on the RHS:
var o3 = p | o2;
Would we imagine that o2 was mutated in any way? I don't think so. Maybe
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 5:08 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
I still haven't found a really compelling use case for a non-literal |
RHS
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
The difference is that object.extend returns objects where as object.make
returns things with the same type as the second operand.
So object.extend (obj, someFunction) is easy.
where as object.make(obj, someFunction)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Peter Dekkers pe...@jbaron.com wrote:
Focus seems to be much on JsDoc, while I just meant it as an example.
Didn't realize the sensitive nature of bringing up that documentation
convention, sorry for that.
I checked the strawman and it looks nice. However
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:45 AM, John J Barton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
The difference is that object.extend returns objects where as object.make
returns things
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
Let me take a crack at tying to tie together all the pieces we have been
talking about.
Allen, I really appreciate your synthesis, thanks. I am able to follow some
of it because of my recent Q/A with the group. I
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Then we can continue to use . and [] to access properties and use @[] to
access data structure elements. I wouldn’t like the asymmetry introduced by
using [] for the latter task.
this is plausible and certainly a
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Thus, there really are two alternatives:
1. Changing [] in the above manner plus object@nameObject for accessing
properties (as you suggested).
2. [] stays as it is and @[] (perhaps there is something slicker, e.g.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
What are you suggesting? A new primitive? Or a subtype of Object? I don’t
think there is a third alternative to those two.
I am suggesting that typeof return collection when the RHS defines a new
semantic for []
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Problem: How do you invoke methods on table?
table.tellAxel = function() {alert('here is a method call');};
table['tellAxel'] = function() {alert('here is a function entry);};
table.tellAxel(); // here is a method
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
below
On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:44 AM, John J Barton wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.dewrote:
Problem: How do you invoke methods on table?
table.tellAxel = function
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:34 AM, John J Barton wrote:
Can anyone summarize how these proposals relate to Kris Kowal / Kris Zyp /
Mark Miller Q library:
https://github.com/kriskowal/q
Did you see
https://github.com
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
In a vein similar to making [] available to collections, one could make
new and instanceof available to other inheritance schemes.
For example:
// “Meta-class” for prototypes as classes/instantiable prototypes
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:20 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
In particular, Q simplifies joining parallel async operations (XHR,
postMessages, 'load', 'progress' events). Of course it may well
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
- instanceof: use for objects.
It's *usable* on objects, but not all that *useful*, even with natives
like Array (they could have come from another frame). This is my biggest
problem with javascript's nominative
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
- If instance factory B inherits from instance factory A, is B a subclass
of A? B a subtype of A? B a subconstructor of A?
B inherits A's prototype, A is in B's prototype chain
B.prototype inherits A.protoype.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_extension_literal_class_pattern
const className = superClass | function(/*constructor parameters */) {
//constructor body
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 1:03 AM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I guess
every JS dev is puzzled by .prototype already.
Compared to a class
language, it seems like a hack. Do we really need it?
I can't tell if this is sarcasm... Ive long held that prototypes are the
next
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 29, 2011, at 10:03 PM, John J Barton wrote:
...
JS is what it is. I don't think it is possible to make prototypes
disappear without breaking many (most??) existing JS programs.
(This perfectly
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:39 AM, John J Barton wrote:
In the abstract I would agree, but, in our world, every college
sophomore CS student learns a class based language and, in our world,
prototypical inheritance
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
