Looks like those restrictions (condition only at the end, only 'for',
'for each',
and 'if' clauses) originate in Brendan's original (too-sketchy)
proposal, see
the Comprehensions section of this page:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:iterators_and_generator
s
IMO we're looking
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen
Sent: 31. mars 2008 20:09
To: Waldemar Horwat; es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: RE: Strict mode recap
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't remember this ever coming up; I always assumed it would be like
for ES3 code (scopes of names are the entire block; functions are
initialized first; then variables in order).
--lars
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P T
Let's use 866 7052554, 6608431. dialing now...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:49 PM
To: P T Withington; Dave Herman
Cc: es4-discuss Discuss; Jon Zeppieri
Subject: RE: let*
Oops. Never mind :)
Jd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Dyer
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:06 PM
To: Lars Hansen; P T Withington; Dave Herman
Cc: es4-discuss Discuss; Jon Zeppieri
Subject: RE: let* is the new
We define the slots for vars and functions first at the top of the block
and do initializations in-order where they reside in the code flow. So:
class XX {
function foo ...
// fooAlias exists here but is undefined
var fooAlias = foo
// fooAlias is now
On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
Looks like those restrictions (condition only at the end, only 'for',
'for each',
and 'if' clauses) originate in Brendan's original (too-sketchy)
proposal, see
the Comprehensions section of this page:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?
On 3/31/08, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having thought more about this, we may get away with less
draconian measures for lexically scoped eval -- it's enough
to simply decree that eval may not add bindings to the
caller's binding object in strict mode (a simple run-time check,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
Sent: 2. april 2008 17:51
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: Waldemar Horwat; es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Strict mode recap
On 3/31/08, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having
-Original Message-
From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2. april 2008 17:15
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: Jason Orendorff; Jeff Dyer; es4-discuss
Subject: Re: grammar update
On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
Looks like those restrictions (condition only at
On 4/2/08, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars, does this mean that expr::[expr] can't introduce
lexical bindings? Or: in strict mode, it can't, but in
standard it can?
It can't introduce bindings; it's just a name.
I meant something like:
var foo::[bar] = baz;
My
On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
This is all thin syntactic sugar, so I don't agree it rocks
the boat too much to follow the full prototype in Python.
I'll update the proposal, since it claims to follow the PEP,
but fails since the PEP cites the RM.
The PEP is scarcely
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
Sent: 2. april 2008 19:06
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Strict mode recap
On 4/2/08, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars, does this mean that
On 4/2/08, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I meant something like:
var foo::[bar] = baz;
My objection to expr::[expr] in earlier messages was based on
the assumption that these computed names could be used on the
left-hand side of an assignment expression -- which, I'm
14 matches
Mail list logo
