On 3/9/08, Michael Daumling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that adding backtrace information is overkill for the spec.
Collecting this information should be left to a debugging environment.
What I would suggest is something along the following lines. It should
be made clear that these
On 3/8/08, zwetan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do I understand well that E4X will be removed from ES4 ???
It was never in ES4 to begin with.
--lars
this is so wrong i can not even believe it...
try to parse XML in .NET/Java/PHP/whatever...
the ONLY elegant and straightforward way to do it
Tucker,
I detect sarcasm in your reply, but maybe I'm just being paranoid now...
R4RS Scheme:
For integers n1 and n2 with n2 not equal to 0,
(= n1 (+ (* n2 (quotient n1 n2)) (remainder n1 n2)))
E262-3 (the % operator):
In the remaining cases, where neither an infinity, nor a zero, nor
NaN
The spec is normative. The RI is informative. (It will presumably
have to commit to some things that the spec need not commit to, even
if its something as relatively trivial as the precise workings of the
random number generator.)
--lars
On 3/6/08, Michael O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is
On 3/6/08, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I have wanted in the past is a variable length vector whose
length I can freeze at some point. Akin to sealing an object
completely against mutation, after mutating it into good shape during
its early lifetime.
Sounds like an argument
The correct interpretation is that a triple quoted string starts with
three quotes of the same kind and ends when the same three quotes are
seen in sequence provided that the character following the three is
not that same quote character.
(Whether you want to call that greedy or not depends on
On 1/24/08, Nathan de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 20:04 +0100, Chris Pine wrote:
It was agreed that implementations would always be free to implement
PTC...
Really? That wasn't the impression I got. My understanding is that if
PTC isn't a requirement, it should not
One issue with requiring the explicit syntax is that the requirement
isn't worth anything as a restriction. The compiler will have to
figure out whether a phrase could be a tail call to find out if the
ditto phrase using explicit syntax is a legal tail call. It is but a
short step from that to
On 1/22/08, Steven Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/22/08 12:14 PM, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, the best design is that (a) a call that is syntatically in tail
position is executed as a tail call when that is possible, but as a
non-tail call when type conversions
On Jan 3, 2008 7:01 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Igor Bukanov wrote:
On 03/01/2008, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
let function f() { };
I missed that if so -- did you see this in the wiki, a trac ticket,
or another doc?
I have not
Also see http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/158. --lars
On Dec 14, 2007 7:42 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Lars T Hansen wrote:
I believe let function is broken in the RI (it has been in the past).
I encouraged Michael to file a trac ticket
decimal
(meaning pretend all numbers are decimal) because we did not think
it could be made to work reliably. The same argument would go for any
other number type IMO.)
--lars
Michael
Lars T Hansen wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 5:07 PM, Michael O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand
I believe let function is broken in the RI (it has been in the past).
--lars
On Dec 14, 2007 4:41 AM, Michael O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While this compiles in the RI, it still produces 2 and 2 for the output.
ie. doesn't seem they are block scoped functions either.
Michael
John
Aware of it. This has been resolved in favor of making the spec say
(effectively) FunctionDeclaration or FunctionExpression.
--lars
On 12/2/07, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ECMA-262 3rd
== section 15.3.4.2 ==
Function.prototype.toString returns a representation with syntax of
On Nov 24, 2007 3:37 PM, Peter Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to express an intersection type, analogous to a
union type?
None at present. I toyed with similar things for a while, being able
to subtract types from unions and so on.
I can see there may be fewer use cases that
On Nov 17, 2007 11:11 AM, Yuh-Ruey Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it not possible to emulate this already with classes? I think you can
use the implicitly-called construct method, e.g.
class myint {
private var i: int;
function myint(x: int) {
this.i = int;
}
meta
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 whatever in Caja
either return true or throws.
At this point, either ES4 slides down the slippery slope a bit and
courts migration
On Nov 11, 2007 6:01 PM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Function findDuplicate is more like mark duplicates. The side effect
is that it adds a __marker property to each object. As it stands, this
function can not be called more than once. The second call might be
passed a different
A bug, no doubt. I'll file it (http://bugs.ecmascript.org -- open to
all comers).
My expectation would be a compile-time error if a void function tries
to return a value since it's syntactically detectable, but I don't
remember it being discussed in the group. (Obtaining the return value
from a
On 10/24/07, StevenLevithan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ECMAScript 4 regular expression extension proposals indicate that the Python
syntax will be used for named capture. Python uses (?Pname...) for named
capture, (?P=name) for a backreference within the regex, and \gname for a
backreference
I'm pleased to present you with an overview paper describing ES4 as
the language currently stands. TG1 is no longer accepting proposals,
we're working on the ES4 reference implementation, and we're expecting
the standard to be finished in October 2008.
The paper is available at
On 10/21/07, Jeff Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/21/07 10:03 AM, liorean wrote:
On 21/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
var a;
a= {};
a instanceof Object //true
a= [];
a instanceof Array //true
a='asdf';
a instanceof String //false
a= 7;
a instanceof
Neat, though it breaks backward compatibility -- each regexp is
converted to string before the comparison, IIRC. (Compatibility may
not be a big problem in practice in this case.)
--lars
On 10/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
allow RegEx in case
var str= 'a';
switch( str
You can subclass String but not string, and the latter is not a
subclass of the former, which is just a container class. So I might
not open the Champagne quite yet, if I were you.
--lars
On 9/27/07, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just about to ask if I would be able to subclass
On 9/22/07, David Teller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:08 +0200, Lars T Hansen wrote:
The ES4 design docs on the wiki do not always explain the current
state of the language; we're not updating them any more.
(Tentatively the ES4 spec will be complete next year
On 9/14/07, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not looking to make trouble here, believe me, but I want to
point out two things that could help David's case:
1. JS regexps were modeled by me (to lwall's horror ;-) on Perl
regexen. Here's what perl (5.8.8) does:
$ perl
aaab =~
On 9/14/07, Hallvord R. M. Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
while working on Opera 9.5's support for getters and setters, we've
discussed whether it should be possible to lookup a getter/setter for a
native (host) property. For example, something like
func =
)
a.push('aaab['+key+']: '+aaab[key]);
a.join('\r\n');
On 03/09/07, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the spec it's pretty clear (to me anyhow) that SpiderMonkey and
Opera are correct here (and the ES4 reference implementation, whose
RegEx engine was modelled directly
On 9/13/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
Got some questions about named groups:
Group names must be valid lexical identifiers, and each group name
must be defined only once within a regular expression.
1. Is this meant to indicate that regex add their own lexical scopes;
No.
On 9/13/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current behavior
is well-defined; it's not a hardship for anyone; the incompatibilities
among the engines are probably not a big deal (thus the incompatible
engines can be changed so
there in the more hazardous
writable form. I just wanted it be actually included in the spec. Or is
there some new functionality in ES4 that will somehow interact with
__proto__ to introduce a security threat?
Kris
- Original Message -
From: Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kris Zyp
On 8/26/07, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
perfectly valid use case of trying to have a private constructor, will
not, unfortunately be accommodated by ES4;
Now filed as bug 166 in the Trac.
--lars
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
I believe it is restricted to ArrayPattern. --lars
On 8/23/07, Eric Suen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Pattern ::= ArrayPattern
Pattern - SimplePattern - LeftHandSideExpression - ArrayLiteral
Is it possible ArrayLiteral appear in Pattern, or it must be an
ArrayPattern? Like
On 8/21/07, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The es3 code is:
function A () ...;
A.zot = function zot () { ... this ... }
function B () ...;
B.prototype = new A();
B.zot = A.zot;
hence `this` is A in A.zot and B in B.zot.
Right...
I was thinking the equivalent es4 would be:
On 6/18/07, Jason Orendorff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/18/07, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that fixing this edge case to make a very robust forEach
would be a bad idea. I think having a very robust forEach (similar to
the DOM2 iteration over handlers) would be
On 6/5/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
After discussion in a thread on ECMAScript binding of the DOM I came
to wonder a bit of what type of type contraints ES4 actually will be
able to have:
2. Also, conversions between the types. Is is possible to have a type
constraint of
On 9/1/07, David Golightly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious as to the fate of the famous JavaScript 1.6 Array extras
(indexOf, lastIndexOf, forEach, map, filter, every, some) in ECMAScript 4.
As a JavaScript developer, I've come to greatly appreciate the
functional-style flexibility these
On 7/30/07, David Teller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently exploring the code, as a preliminary to writing a static
analysis tool. At the moment, I'm stuck in the lexer, where I have two
questions.
Firstly, embedded comments seem to be forbidden. That is, a block such
as
On 5/23/07, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 16, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Lars T Hansen wrote:
Ah. No, we've not talked about doing that, and you don't get to set a
bit on the Date object that says the time does not matter. I
suppose you could, but I don't (yet) know what
Thanks for the code.
If it is true that ISO week numbers are different from US week numbers
I'm not sure we want to touch this, it might be better for sites to
implement their own as their needs dictate (based on audience etc).
The wikipedia hints that there are even more systems in use (search
On 7/25/07, Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars T Hansen-2 wrote:
On 7/25/07, Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this as two issues.
1) The need for Collections/Data Structures.
2) The desire for shorthand access to these.
Indeed. We've decided to support (1) but not (2
On 7/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering about two things involving timezones.
The proposal Date and time improvements is defining the
Date.toISO():String method.
It's unclear to me in what timezone the date should
be serialized in: local timezone or UTC.
On 7/16/07, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering about two things involving timezones.
The proposal Date and time improvements is defining the
Date.toISO():String method.
It's unclear to me in what timezone
43 matches
Mail list logo
