On 2007-11-14, at 00:14 EST, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
Oh come on :) I was referring to the syntax of the class system, which
is undoubtedly Java-esque. Lot of Java haters in the functional (no
1st-class functions!) and scripting (too verbose!) programming crowd.
Pretty much everyone's first
After searching through the wiki and ecmascript.org site, I still
can't see any formal or informal explanation of how like and is
like work, except in passing, and not with precision. Does this
information exist somewhere?
Peter
___
Es4-discuss mailing
Hello ES4 fans,
I have now read the recently posted whitepaper. I marked up my printed
copy with many comments in the margins, and I am sharing them with the
list now.
Please note that this does not constitute an official Apple position,
just some personal off-the-cuff opinions. I have
On Nov 14, 2007 2:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nullability: Are non-nullable types really worth it? I am not sure.
Does any other explicit type system for a dynamic OO language have
such a concept? The whitepaper says that the ability to store null is
occasionally the
By fixed, do you mean an RI bug or a spec issue? If it's just an RI
bug, can you tell me what those exprs are supposed to evaluate to?
-Yuh-Ruey Chen
Lars T Hansen wrote:
At present, generic functions do not discriminate on structural types.
This probably needs to be fixed, but I've not
On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
I don't see how that's workable. I mean, technically it is, since |is|
is a runtime check. But it creates another incompatibility between
type annotations and |is|, and you seem pretty adamant to keep the two
as coherent as possible.
You're
Hey Maciej, thanks for the detailed comments. As many detailed
responses as I can muster below -- all opinions mine unless noted
(e.g. where I cite a group opinion).
On Nov 14, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Goals: I strongly agree with the stated goals of compatibility and
On Nov 1, 2007 3:46 PM, Kris Zyp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a sandbox, right? Should be safe. Not so fast:
last they gave up. rexec was removed from the language.
With the complexity of creating and verifing a sandboxing eval that allows
shared mutable objects with some degree of
JSON: Sounds good.
This proposal is withdrawn and another API is being considered for
reinclusion later. See http:;//json.org/json2.js.
toJSONString and parseJSON are going away? I was actually wanting to write
and suggest the removal of these, with Douglas's recent change in his JSON
API. I
