On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Shaver wrote:
I can't see why not -- we'll certainly be looking to implement
forthcoming editions of ECMAScript, and if decimal is a part of it
then your code would certainly be helpful!
Did you say if? Grrr
Yes?
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 10, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Richard Cornford wrote:
Something like:-
fucntion getSomething(arg){
if(caseOneTest){
getSomething = function(x){
//actions appropriate for case one
};
}else if(caseTwoTest){
getSomething =
On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:37 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
What are the compatibility relationships between ES4 opt-in, ES4
opt-in strict, ES4 strict, and ES4? I think it's clear that ES4 opt-in
strict is a subset of ES4 opt-in.
You have to opt into ES4 to even utter the pragma |use strict|, so
7:00 PM
To: Mark S. Miller
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; es4-discuss@mozilla.org; Herman Venter
Subject: Re: Newly revised Section 10 for ES3.1.
On Jul 9, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Mike Shaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008/7/9 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL
On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I do not believe that ECMA has the two interoperable implementations
rule that the IETF and W3C have, but since ECMAScript is a standard of
equal important to the Web, I think we should adopt this rule for any
future edition of
On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I do not believe that ECMA has the two interoperable
implementations
rule that the IETF and W3C have, but since ECMAScript is a
standard of
equal important to the Web, I think we
On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
As for new syntax not involving new keywords, and new library APIs,
we have talked about supporting these additions in the default
version, since doing so cannot break existing code.
This is not true of ES4, although it's true we have talked
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you read
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:versioning
?
I had read it, but rereading it in the current context was illuminating.
Thanks for the pointer.
Is current document the same as current
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, this sort of thing is a reason that I'm pretty concerned about
ES3.1 getting into an advanced specification state without the benefit
of any in-browser implementation.
You need to have an advance specification
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Decimal is a library addition. A superset of whatever gets proposed for
ES3.1 should be included in ES4. Brendan mentioned four places where ES4
implementation work is either occurring or intended to occur:
SpiderMonkey
In a message dated 7/10/2008 3:03:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not believe that ECMA has the two interoperable implementations
rule that the IETF and W3C have, but since ECMAScript is a standard of
equal important to the Web, I think we should adopt
On my last comment, please note that an internal vote would be within TC 39,
not TC 31. What hat am I wearing today?
John
**Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Library additions have less of a concern for interaction with real-world
content, but the idea of inserting the code into something that will
ultimately ship does appeal to me. If I were to do the work to put this
code into
On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:41 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Have you read
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:versioning
?
I had read it, but rereading it in the current context was
illuminating. Thanks for the
In the course of this, I noticed a number of conditions that plausibly
might be restricted in the cautious subset, but currently aren't
specified as such:
snip
*Illegal to assign to a top-level function name.
Does anybody want to advocate for including these restrictions
in the
(Adding lists back to Cc, which I assume you meant to do)
On Jul 10, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Authors who assume that the function was conditionally declared in IE
and Opera (and who knows what else) would be making false assumption.
That's true, but what I have seen in
Mike Shaver wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, this sort of thing is a reason that I'm pretty concerned about
ES3.1 getting into an advanced specification state without the benefit
of any in-browser implementation.
You need to have an
On Jul 10, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
The key criterion here is whether you can come up with a language
that makes sense. None of the existing behaviors make sense
because they would make 'function' hoist differently from 'const'
hoist differently from declaring other
On Jul 10, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Richard Cornford wrote:
A new specification probably should pin down which of these is
correct.
It should either reinforce the implication that the linkage is
intended to
be long term or state the lifespan of the linkage (possibly saying
that it
cannot be
On Jul 10, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Richard Cornford wrote:
Something like:-
fucntion getSomething(arg){
if(caseOneTest){
getSomething = function(x){
//actions appropriate for case one
};
}else if(caseTwoTest){
getSomething = function(x){
On Jul 9, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Const and function declarations within blocks must be uniquely
named, such a declaration may not over-write a preceding declaration
in the same block and an attempt to do so is a syntax error. Such
declarations, of course, shadow any
2008/7/9 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Although the standard does not allow block-level function declarations
I'd understood that, while ES3 didn't specify such declarations, it
was not a violation of the standard to have them. I agree with your
assessment of the compatibility impact,
2008/7/9 Allen Wirfs-Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've just finished reworking section 10 to better accommodate block scoped
function declarations and const statements. In the course of this I had to
make various decisions about the semantics. The primary purpose of this
message is to provide
Hi Maciej, IIUC, these examples work the same in Allen's proposal as the do
in ES4. If this does break the web, doesn't ES4 have exactly the same
problem?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 9, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Const
On Jul 9, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Mike Shaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008/7/9 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Although the standard does not allow block-level function
declarations
I'd understood that, while ES3 didn't specify
On Jul 9, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Hi Maciej, IIUC, these examples work the same in Allen's proposal
as the do in ES4. If this does break the web, doesn't ES4 have
exactly the same problem?
The idea for ES4 was to change the meaning of function sub-statements
only under
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 9, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Hi Maciej, IIUC, these examples work the same in Allen's proposal as the
do in ES4. If this does break the web, doesn't ES4 have exactly the same
problem?
The idea for
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:00 PM
To: Mark S. Miller
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; es4-discuss@mozilla.org; Herman Venter
Subject: Re: Newly revised Section 10 for ES3.1.
On Jul 9, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Mike Shaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008/7
On Jul 9, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I’m also confused about this. My understanding was, other than
perhaps some of the details I was specifically looking for feedback
on, that what I specified was generally what ES4 was planning on
doing.
See my reply to Mark citing
09, 2008 6:48 PM
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org; Mark S. Miller; Herman Venter; Pratap Lakshman
(VJ#SDK); Douglas Crockford
Subject: Re: Newly revised Section 10 for ES3.1.
2008/7/9 Allen Wirfs-Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've just finished reworking section 10 to better
30 matches
Mail list logo
