I'm guessing you're just experiencing the effects of
http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/285. The correct behavior is a
run-time error in standard mode; compile-time error in strict mode.
--lars
On Nov 12, 2007 11:38 PM, Nathan de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> What's the exp
Hi everyone,
What's the expected behaviour for a function returning a value, of which
the type is contrary to the type defined in the function declaration?
For example:
var func:Function = function():int {
return "This is not an int";
}
typeof(func()); // string
Is this exp
Graydon Hoare wrote:
>- You can actually represent 0.5 in the first place! Binary floating
> point cannot. Decimal can. In the default decimal context, 0.5 + 0.5
> gives an exact decimal answer; there is no rounding to worry about.
Oops, excuse me: 0.1. As I've had pointed out, 0.5
Jonathan Watt wrote:
> liorean wrote:
>> On 11/11/2007, Jonathan Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I've noticed that rounding in the reference implementation is implemented
>>> using
>>> IEEE roundTiesToEven, but in browsers .5 values appear to round towards
>>> zero.
>>> Although roundTiesToEv
On Nov 12, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Lars T Hansen wrote:
> IMO the only sane thing to do in this regard, if we were to do
> anything, is to add what we consider bug-fixing behavior to the
> effects of "use strict". We've already hung the eval change there,
For good reason too -- if eval can create bind
On Nov 12, 2007 4:25 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> > To fix delete within this constraint, "delete " in Caja
> > either return true or throws.
>
> At this point, either ES4 slides down the slippery slope a bit and
> courts migratio
Hello!
Since we now have a namespace for uint specific math operations, and
discussion in another thread about using pragmas for throwing if
assigning to ReadOnly properties... Is it possible we could have a
look at the idea of adding constrained primitive types or adding a
pragma changing the mec
On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> To fix delete within this constraint, "delete " in Caja
> either return true or throws.
At this point, either ES4 slides down the slippery slope a bit and
courts migration pain that holds it back (we really do expect most
pages on the web toda
On Nov 12, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> There are couple potential problems with upgrading |instanceof| to
>> match the syntax of the revised |is|:
>>
>> 1) Function expr syntax ambiguity. Consider:
>>
>> a) x is function(p: int): int // ok
>> b) x is function(p: int): int {} // syntax
On Nov 12, 2007 2:30 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nothing as badly silent as assigning to a ReadOnly property, but here I'll
> bitch about a similar change during ES1 standardization: delete x => false
>
> Anyway, with exception handling these both seem like warts. At least with
>
On Nov 12, 2007, at 1:40 PM, YR Chen wrote:
> Definitely like it. I wonder how convoluted the grammar change was
> - did it require a new value_expr_no_conflicts_with_type_expr
> production and all related productions/rules?
Not sure, but top-down parsers have it easy, discriminating on the
Many thanks. If there is any way I can be of any help, please don't
hesitate to ask. I would be delighted.
- David
On Nov 12, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Jeff Dyer wrote:
>
> On 11/12/07 2:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Thank you for adding me to this list.
>>
>> I have just fini
Jonathan Watt wrote:
> It would be really nice to be able to search the mailing list archives.
Use Google:
site:https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es4-discuss/ closure
Chris
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.
On Nov 12, 2007, at 1:56 PM, YR Chen wrote:
> Personally, I'm still mixed on the introduction of the whole
> nominal type system with classes and whatnot. I'm very sympathetic
> to views that ES4 should concentrate on ES3's weak points. At
> times, I feel that ES3 is just too "alien" a base
On Nov 12, 2007 2:50 PM, Jonathan Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, no, I guess there's "use xml namespace [string or Namespace
> > object]", which might suggest "use error [Class reference or object]".
> > The latter could be used for other types of errors as well.
>
> use error Re
On 11/12/07 2:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Thank you for adding me to this list.
>
> I have just finished reading the language proposal spec, and was
> struck by the richness of the additions to the language. I haven't
> been following this effort at all; and so thank people
T. Michael Keesey wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 2:22 PM, Jonathan Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what maintaining case convention gives you here. Using |use
>> ReadOnlyError| is about as intuitive and easy to remember as it could be I
>> think.
>
> Since the existing pragma directives
Hi, new here.
On Nov 12, 2007 2:22 PM, Jonathan Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>use readonly error
> >>>
> >>> or perhaps
> >>>
> >>>use readonly throw
> >>>
> >>> We try to make pragmas more readable, sometimes with an extra word;
> >>> not sure this is the best way to phrase it st
On Nov 12, 2007, at 1:43 PM, YR Chen wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007 11:40 AM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007 9:05 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [..], but the idea would
> be to enable throwing of a ReadOnlyError on assignment to a ReadOnly
> property. Comments?
H
Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
>
>> I like the idea of a pragma more than opt-in versioning since it
>> can be used
>> in-place, and (I guess) placed before and after a section of code
>> to turn the
>> handling on then off again.
>
> Pragmas are block
Hello all,
Thank you for adding me to this list.
I have just finished reading the language proposal spec, and was
struck by the richness of the additions to the language. I haven't
been following this effort at all; and so thank people in advance for
their patience with my ignorance. Now th
On Nov 12, 2007 3:56 PM, YR Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm very sympathetic to views that ES4 should concentrate on ES3's weak
> points.
Oops, I meant that strong points, not weak points.
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
http
Personally, I'm still mixed on the introduction of the whole nominal type
system with classes and whatnot. I'm very sympathetic to views that ES4
should concentrate on ES3's weak points. At times, I feel that ES3 is just
too "alien" a base to build the "programming in the large" features that ES4
a
On Nov 12, 2007 11:40 AM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 9:05 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [..], but the idea would
> > be to enable throwing of a ReadOnlyError on assignment to a ReadOnly
> > property. Comments?
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
> I'm glad to hear tha
Responding to 2 emails here...
On Nov 12, 2007 12:35 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> > Part of the thinking in
> > resolving #103 in favor of type expression on right of 'is' was to
> > future-proof against a world where type and
On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 9:05 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [..], but the idea would
>> be to enable throwing of a ReadOnlyError on assignment to a ReadOnly
>> property. Comments?
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
> I'm glad to hear that this possibility i
On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
> I like the idea of a pragma more than opt-in versioning since it
> can be used
> in-place, and (I guess) placed before and after a section of code
> to turn the
> handling on then off again.
Pragmas are block-scoped, so just one should do.
On the surface, that sounds like it makes sense. But if I'm writing an
application in strict mode, that uses a pre-existing library, will I
have to edit that library to add "use standard" to every file?
"Inheriting" the pragma is not straightforward unless you inherit only
from the program entry p
Got it. Thanks!
Jd
On 11/12/07 10:25 AM, Peter Hall wrote:
> Also, there is a minor bug [1] with the pragma syntax:
>
> Pragma :
> UsePragma SemicolonFull
> ImportPragma SemicolonFull
>
> UsePragma :
> use PragmaItems SemicolonFull
>
>
> resulting in two semicolons being required after
Also, there is a minor bug [1] with the pragma syntax:
Pragma :
UsePragma SemicolonFull
ImportPragma SemicolonFull
UsePragma :
use PragmaItems SemicolonFull
resulting in two semicolons being required after a "use" pragma.
Peter
[1] http://wiki.ecmascript.
Pragmas are invariably lexically scoped.
Some pragmas are probably more useful at the top level, "use strict"
is among these. One pattern we think might develop is "use strict"
at the top level, followed by "use standard" inside some blocks where
strict mode gets in the way (if only temporarily
What is the scope of a pragma such as that? Is it just the current
lexical scope, like a "use namespace" statement, or does it change the
behaviour for the entire program? If it's the latter, isn't there a
compatibility problem between libraries? If it's the former, do you
anticipate that es4 progr
On Nov 12, 2007 9:05 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [..], but the idea would
> be to enable throwing of a ReadOnlyError on assignment to a ReadOnly
> property. Comments?
Hi Brendan,
I'm glad to hear that this possibility is in scope. In the Caja spec, we write:
\item[Silent erro
It would be really nice to be able to search the mailing list archives.
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I understand it the reason assignment to ReadOnly properties
>> fails silently
>> is that there was no try-catch prior to ECMAScript 3.
>
> Right. Netscape 2 reported a fatal error, but during ES1
> stan
On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I understand it the reason assignment to ReadOnly properties
> fails silently
> is that there was no try-catch prior to ECMAScript 3.
Right. Netscape 2 reported a fatal error, but during ES1
standardization we agreed to go with si
Hi,
As I understand it the reason assignment to ReadOnly properties fails silently
is that there was no try-catch prior to ECMAScript 3. Could/will edition 4
require an exception to be thrown in strict mode?
Jonathan
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-dis
The OpenAjax Alliance website (OpenAjax.Org) was recently hacked (a
phishing attack according to Jon Ferraiolo) and so I have let the group
use the domain http://OpenAjax.Com in it's place until everything is
worked out.
It seems GoDaddy has been very responsive, and the DNS is switched back,
and
38 matches
Mail list logo
