Lars Hansen wrote:
Please define the terms forgeable and unforgeable in the
synopsis before using them later.
The terms are (will be) defined in the language part of the spec,
and there is already an entry in the NOTES section that defines
what they mean for the moment, since the language
Draf 2 of the spec for Namespace objects.
--lars
Title: The class "Namespace"
The class Namespace
FILE: spec/library/Namespace.html
DRAFT STATUS: DRAFT 2 - 2008-03-17
SOURCES:REFERENCES [1], [2]
REVIEWED AGAINST ES3: N/A
-Original Message-
From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12. mars 2008 18:54
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Namespace
Here's my review of this section:
Is null a valid value of the class Namespace? The
description states
-Original Message-
From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13. mars 2008 17:35
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Namespace
Lars Hansen wrote:
The natural behavior on etc would be as in ES3, ie, if valueOf on
namespace returns
I suppose we could simply state that two Namespaces yield the
same string value iff they are ===, and that two invocations
of toString()
... on the same Namespace object ...
always yields the same string. Doesn't seem
particularly onerous, it would probably be the case in most
On Mar 13, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
I suppose we could simply state that two Namespaces yield the same
string value iff they are ===, and that two invocations of toString()
always yields the same string. Doesn't seem particularly onerous,
it would probably be the case in most
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
On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:51 PM, T. Michael Keesey wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
E4X is not used on the Web.
So ActionScript 3.0-based Flash/Flex websites don't count?
Sorry, my browser bias is showing.
Sure, E4X is in Flash. Interoperating
On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Sure, E4X is in Flash. Interoperating with itself. Same goes for
SpiderMonkey. It's not part of the cross-browser standards that are
implemented in standards,
er, implemented in browsers.
/be
___
On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Michael Daumling wrote:
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the decision to not support
E4X in
ES4. Would this decision not Break The Web, as E4X has been an
integral
part of SpiderMonkey for a long time?
Certainly it won't break the Web, since the Web has
According to what edition of ECMA-357, with what unfixed and fixed
errata?
Tested interoperably with other implementations (say,
SpiderMonkey's) how?
I can only speak for ExtendScript. E4X was implemented according to
ECMA-357 2nd edition, and it is tested using the SpiderMonkey test
suite.
11 matches
Mail list logo
