Was this discussed? I can't find any reference to it.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Gary Guo wrote:
> If added, it can help ES engines to write more code in ES instead of
> native languages. So +1 as well.
>
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-disc
I think it's easier to convey the message to never use "callee" instead use
function.self.
On Feb 27, 2015 1:52 AM, "Allen Wirfs-Brock" wrote:
> ((n)=>n>1? n*function.callee(n-1) : 1)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> > Can you show an example of how callee is used
Thanks Caitlin for actually putting this onto github! I wasn't aware of
that process when I posted about this to the mailinglist. Asking again from
last time: Should we have Type == Object check like Reflect.isExtensible?
-Tom
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Caitlin Potter
wrote:
> **disclaim
Thanks Juriy,
for writing a test for this. The problem in SpiderMonkey/Firefox is the
line
Object.defineProperty(obj, '4', { value: true, enumerable: true });
which defines a non-writable/non-configurable element. We don't store those
with "normal" elements and thus they fall into the insertion
It's meant as an extension point. I believe some DOM list/array is supposed
to use this.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>
> https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-array.prototype.concat
>
> I’m not seeing @@isConcatSpreadable being used as a property
Hi,
the current definition of [[Construct]] doesn't allow to create
non-constructable objects, but instead just invokes the call handler.
On easy hackaround would be to check if the constructhandler has a
[[Construct]] internal method. Then you could create non constructable
Functions like this:
I guess something along the lines of
new ((function () { return this; }).prototype = String);
How would you do Object.create(null) ?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Douglas Crockford
wrote:
> On 11:59 AM, P T Withington wrote:
>>
>> ES3 does not have the luxury of Object.create,
>
> Object.c
I think
´typeof null´ could use it's own proposal and some tracking how much
this would affect the web.
Cheers
Tom Schuster
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Oh missed that wiki page. Good to see this going, created
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651251 anyways.
(Sorry brendan, didn't meant to write to you, post mailing list generation here)
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
htt
Hello fellow hackers,
after about half a year of hacking on our Monkeys, i felt it would be
nice to meet face to face. If you are from europe, please at your self
to the list and the dates that would please you. Of course it would be
really awesome, if some of you US guys would be there to, but th
You can ignore this, wrong mailing list :)
Am 09.05.2011 um 16:37 schrieb Tom Schuster :
> Hello fellow hackers,
>
> after about half a year of hacking on our Monkeys, i felt it would be
> nice to meet face to face. If you are from europe, please at your self
> to the list and
I am wondering if you discussed the typeof null proposal?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> On 28 July 2011 20:34, David Bruant wrote:
>> Le 28/07/2011 19:52, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
>>> On 28 July 2011 10:35, David Bruant wrote:
Le 28/07/2011 06:21, Brendan Eic
>var a = 10
> , b = 20
> , c = 30;
Ugh the first time i saw this, i wondered who came up with this.
The Google style guide also isn't too bad
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javascriptguide.xmlcript.crockford.com/code.html
, though I disagree with
/wrong button
On Fri, Sep 9,
(1) is in fact really good optimized in modern engines. (In case you
are interested search for "Ropes: an alternative to strings")
I think today it's not a very good idea to propose methods on probably
existing performance problems.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> (1) i
I think you just documented this:
http://www.yafla.com/dforbes/String_Concatenation_and_Immutable_Strings_Speeding_Spidermonkey/
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Wes Garland wrote:
> On 6 October 2011 14:09, Tom Schuster wrote:
>>
>> (1) is in fact really good optimized in moder
Hey!
Looking at the the steps for Object.is the first sentence just says:
> "When the is function is called with arguments value1 and value2 the
> following steps are taken:"
I don't remember other functions being defined like that. It should at
least say something along the lines of
"When called
Sorry for the typo in the title :)
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> Hey!
>
> Looking at the the steps for Object.is the first sentence just says:
>> "When the is function is called with arguments value1 and value2 the
>> following steps are taken:
13 at 12:06 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 3:40 PM, David Bruant wrote:
>
>> Le 16/03/2013 19:18, Tom Schuster a écrit :
>>> Hey!
>>>
>>> Looking at the the steps for Object.is the first sentence just says:
>>>> "Whe
Also note that with the current definition Object.is() should return
true. I am not really a big fan of that ;)
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
>
>> I would argue that the disclaimer makes this more
Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
>>
>> > I would argue that the disclaimer makes this more confusing. I am
>> > aware of the behavior that not passed parameters are undefined. But It
>> > sounded li
Math.imul support was just added to the v8 trunk:
https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=14450.
Is there any ongoing effort to standardize it?
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> David Herman wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like a
I am curious about how this going. Did you observe any breakage? I will
probably look into at least adding a warning for this in Firefox very soon.
-Tom
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> As MarkM said it break on recursion, but we’re also only killing
> function.arguments,
Hello,
right now there is no way in normal JS code to replicate the IsConstructor
check defined in 7.2.4.
IsCallable can be done with "typeof == function". I think this might be
useful in some cases and is trivial to implement.
Cheers,
Tom
___
es-discus
) is not Object, then throw a TypeError exception.
2. Return the result of calling the abstract operation
IsConstructor(target).
I am not sure about step 1, but it follows the style of Reflect.isExtensible
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> right now the
Thank you both.
Looking forward to the feedback.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Rick Waldron
wrote:
> Done: https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2015/01.md
>
> On Fri Dec 19 2014 at 12:26:33 PM Jason Orendorff <
> jason.orendo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Having said that, I do think Refle
The Proxy [[Construct]] method 9.5.14, has the step 7.a
"If target does not have a [[Construct]] internal method, throw a TypeError
exception."
But a proxy only has a [[Construct]] internal method when the target has a
[[Construct]] internal method. I am not aware that an object can lose an
intern
26 matches
Mail list logo
