I've had a request to repeat the example I showed at the meeting, so here's one:
{
if (false) {
// Say we're introducing a new cast syntax '(expr) expr'
var y = (int)/fo+/.exec(abcfoo);
}
push_the_button = false;
{
z = y/x;
}
}
In ECMAScript parsing and lexing are
liorean wrote:
You're basically saying that ES4 mustn't change the meaning of any ES3
program here. The problem I see with that is that it wouldn't allow
any semantics expansion that reuses the old syntax forms. You'd
confine all language changes to be either pure standards library ones
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another reaction is that there are ES4 source fragments
that /can/ be
parsed by ES3 compilers, but whose meaning will silently
be something
completely different in the two versions of the language.
Here are
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've spent some time examining
compatibility between ES3 and ES4 [1]. Opt-in to ES4 keeps you out of
most trouble.
2008/5/17 Steven Mascaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's true if the programmer in question is confident that
Ian Hickson wrote:
Another reaction is that there are ES4 source fragments that
/can/ be parsed by ES3 compilers, but whose meaning will silently
be something completely different in the two versions of the
language. Here are some:
// a generator expression in ES4, a loop calling a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Mascaro
Sent: 16. mai 2008 22:34
To: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Forwards-compatible syntax proposal
Ian Hickson wrote:
Another reaction is that there are ES4 source fragments
Hi Mike,
2008/5/13 Mike Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/5/13 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
what about
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:versioning
and
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:versioning
[snip]
On developer tools and mime-types, subversion will treat
2008/5/14 Mike Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok. So it's a content-type which is not a mime-type even though it looks
like one?
Is there a separate recommendation that defines a mime-type for ecmascript?
uri:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt
--
David liorean Andersson
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the problems with ES4 relative to ES3 is that the new syntax means
that a script using ES4 features doesn't work in ES3 compilers.
There's not much we can do in the ES3-ES4 language migration about this.
But we
This wouldn't work. Without syntactically distinguishing a / that is a
division from a / that starts a regexp, there is no way to find the end of the
block. To make this distinction you need to be able to parse the contents of
the block without errors.
To complicate matters further, various
2008/5/13 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
what about
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:versioning
and
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:versioning
?
if I read those documents well
ES1-4 support backward-compatibility
and later for ES5 etc.
we could either use
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
Sent: 8. mai 2008 20:18
To: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Forwards-compatible syntax proposal
One of the problems with ES4 relative to ES3 is that the new
syntax means that a script using ES4 features doesn't
One of the problems with ES4 relative to ES3 is that the new syntax means
that a script using ES4 features doesn't work in ES3 compilers.
There's not much we can do in the ES3-ES4 language migration about this.
But we _can_ prevent this problem from existing again in ES5 and up.
I propose
13 matches
Mail list logo
