First draft of the spec for the Function class. Please comment.
--lars
Title: The class "Function"
The class Function
NAME: "The class 'Function'"
FILE: spec/library/Function.html
CATEGORY: Pre-defined classes
SOURCES:
Draft 2 of the spec for the Object class. Changelog near the beginning.
--lars
Title: The class "Object"
The class Object
NAME: "The class 'Object'"
FILE: spec/library/Object.html
CATEGORY: Pre-defined classes (E262-3
On 10/03/2008, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Draft 2 of the spec for the Object class. Changelog near the beginning.
The draft HTML seems a little broken. There's amp;#x0085 in it early
on, later these appear raw in the source (which displays as an empty
square in Opera and IE8).
And
What is the reason to make the thisObj param to bind optional?
2008/3/10 Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
First draft of the spec for the Function class. Please comment.
--lars
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 9, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
ES3 code can't detect namespaces, so arguably shouldn't care if we
were to implement DontEnum using an open namespace. But this could be
a problem for mixed ES3 and ES4 scenarios where the ES4 code
new Vector.T ( length=..., fixed=... )
It would be helpful for readability to have the types here.
The |Vector| constructor is implementation-defined.
This is misleading. Usually when a standard states that something is
implementation-defined, it means that its semantics are not specified
-Original Message-
From: Erik Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10. mars 2008 17:31
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Function
What is the reason to make the thisObj param to bind optional?
Symmetry with call and apply and a consequence of
intrinsic function propertyIsEnumerable(name: EnumerableId, flag:
(boolean|undefined) = undefined): boolean
I too find the second parameter here abhorrent. Please find another way to
solve it (Brendan's namespace idea maybe) or remove this feature altogether.
How does property lookup deal
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean
Sent: 10. mars 2008 17:52
To: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Object
On 10/03/2008, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Draft 2 of the spec for the Object class.
The character sequence BACKSLASH lineterminator (where lineterminator
will be one of the characters LF, LS, or PS) is removed from string literals
delimited by either single or triple SINGLEQUOTE or DOUBLEQUOTE characters.
(Triple-quoting is defined in [5].)
This states that:
abc\\
tde
Jeff Dyer wrote:
- Phone calls as needed
Is there one tomorrow? There's a blank agenda page for it.
Waldemar
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
-Original Message-
From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10. mars 2008 18:50
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Object
intrinsic function propertyIsEnumerable(name: EnumerableId, flag:
(boolean|undefined) = undefined): boolean
-Original Message-
From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10. mars 2008 18:59
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
Subject: Re: ES4 draft last call: line continuation in string
and regex literals
The character sequence BACKSLASH lineterminator (where
As far as I can see this is not a problem in the file I sent out, nor in
the one I received from the reflector.
What mailer are you using?
Anyone else see this?
--lars
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean
Sent: 10. mars 2008
Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Jeff Dyer wrote:
- Phone calls as needed
Is there one tomorrow? There's a blank agenda page for it.
Hearing no objection, the ES4-WG weekly phone calls are suspended until
sufficient need for one arises.
Enjoy your free hour!
Jd
Lars Hansen wrote:
The character sequence BACKSLASH lineterminator (where
lineterminator will be one of the characters LF, LS, or PS) is
removed from string literals delimited by either single or triple
SINGLEQUOTE or DOUBLEQUOTE characters. (Triple-quoting is
defined in
[5].)
This
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waldemar Horwat
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:29 PM
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
Subject: Re: ES4 draft last call: line continuation in string and
regexliterals
Lars
On 11/03/2008, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I can see this is not a problem in the file I sent out, nor in
the one I received from the reflector.
What mailer are you using?
Gmail's web interface. And checking, it appears only using the View
link, not the Download link. So
Lars Hansen wrote:
The feature was approved by the WG and solves a practical problem.
If another way to solve this practical problem is proposed (in a
more structured form than in the ongoing discussion) and finds favor
with the WG, then fine -- of course we can replace it. Until then,
this
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen
Sent: 10. mars 2008 18:46
To: Erik Arvidsson
Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
Subject: RE: ES4 draft: Function
-Original Message-
From: Erik Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10. mars 2008 19:40
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Object
Lars Hansen wrote:
The feature was approved by the WG and solves a practical problem.
If another way to
Draft 2, changelog near the beginning.
Please note the OPEN ISSUES section, which names two fairly
arbitrary designs in this proposal. Comments welcome.
--lars
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen
Sent: 5. mars 2008 17:32
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Jeff Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it would
be helpful to follow up with possible solutions or at least insight into
what makes it abhorrent (your word).
FWIW, I also did not grasp the force of the objection, and would like
to understand better.
No
On 3/10/08, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First draft of the spec for the Function class. Please comment.
Suggestion: deprecate the Function constructor and static invoke().
Almost all of its uses are better handled by function expressions and,
in those cases where eval() in required,
On 3/10/08, Erik Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are valid use cases for new Function (...) and Function(...).
One that comes to mind is getting an attribute in DOM and make it into
an event handler. Yes, the Function constructor and meta::invoke can
be replaced by eval but
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Jeff Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/10/08 5:40 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
I'm dealing with a serious insurrection of folks who believe that the ES4
working group has a bad attitude, based on Brendan's public comments and
responses to issues like this
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
intrinsic function propertyIsEnumerable(name: EnumerableId, flag:
(boolean|undefined) = undefined): boolean
I too find the second parameter here abhorrent. Please find another way
to solve it (Brendan's namespace idea maybe) or remove this
27 matches
Mail list logo
