On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Mike Samuel wrote:
JSON ⊂ ADsafe ⊂ Cajita ⊂ Caja ⊂ ES3 ⊂ ES4
People who know Unicode are dangerous ;).
Yes, we need more of you ;-).
There's three problems according to my reading of http://
www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt but only the first is directly
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
What numbers are representable as double but not decimal?
Mike Cowlishaw's page at http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/ is
extremely informative, especially http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/
decifaq.html; see also the link to
OK, thanks (also for the archive pointer).
Mike
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike Cowlishaw, IBM Fellow
IBM UK (MP8), PO Box 31, Birmingham Road, Warwick, CV34 5JL
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/mfcsumm.html
Brendan Eich
On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:25 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
Separately from the decimal discussion, I am a bit confused at how
ES3.x
or ES4 is migrated to from ES3. If the syntax cannot change then that
implies that the semantics change without any indication in the
syntax.
ES4 has new syntax;
Maciej wrote on Wed Feb 20 14:28:33 PST 2008:
Besides compatibility issues, this would be a significant performance
regression for math-heavy code. I would consider this a showstopper to
implementing such a change.
I'm inclined to agree that it is (unfortunately) probably not a good idea
Is there a published specification that all these implementors will be
using?
Thanks,
Geoff
On Feb 20, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
As Jeff has laid out, with helpful comments from Michael O'Brien,
Lars, and Graydon, we are entering a phase of ES4 work where
practical
On Feb 21, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
Maciej wrote on Wed Feb 20 14:28:33 PST 2008:
Besides compatibility issues, this would be a significant performance
regression for math-heavy code. I would consider this a showstopper
to
implementing such a change.
I'm inclined to
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Is there a published specification that all these implementors will be
using?
To expand a bit on Geoff's comment:
I'd like Apple and the WebKit project to get involved with ES4
implementation. But right now, as far as I can tell, there
Another thought: does ES4 provide enough introspection capability to
write proxy objects that wrap an immutable class instance? It seems as
though it should be possible to create a single class (with *
getter/setter functions) that can wrap any object, emulate its interface
and provide
On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Neil Mix wrote:
Another thought: does ES4 provide enough introspection capability to
write proxy objects that wrap an immutable class instance? It seems
as though it should be possible to create a single class (with *
getter/setter functions) that can wrap any
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
To expand a bit on Geoff's comment:
I'd like Apple and the WebKit project to get involved with ES4
implementation.
Great! Though please keep in mind a point in the remainder of your
comments: WebKit (and Rhino) are operating from a somewhat newcomer
perspective,
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Brendan Eich wrote:
In contrast, with CSS, Web API or HTML WG specifications, I can point
engineers to a spec that is more or less accurate for a given feature
and they only have to ask questions about the few missing details.
And then Hixie goes and rewrites it.
Michael O'Brien wrote:
As a solution: I think we need an intermediate step. Not a spec, but
some detailed design notes. Lar's document was a good
overview, but drill down on exactly how the mechanisms are meant to work
would be very helpful to broaden the base of
implementations. Some
I'd like Apple and the WebKit project to get involved with ES4
implementation. But right now, as far as I can tell, there isn't a
written record for any of ES4's features that I could point an
engineer to and say implement this.
There's certainly no such spec, or you would be a passive
On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
I'd like Apple and the WebKit project to get involved with ES4
implementation. But right now, as far as I can tell, there isn't a
written record for any of ES4's features that I could point an
engineer to and say implement this.
There's
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Geoffrey Garen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, since there is no spec -- at least, not one I can lay my
hands on -- I'll have to wait until the people in the know finish
their implementations
What changes would you like to see in the process? What would
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I'd like Apple and the WebKit project to get involved with ES4
implementation. But right now, as far as I can tell, there isn't a
written record for any of ES4's features that I could
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
To expand a bit on Geoff's comment:
I'd like Apple and the WebKit project to get involved with ES4
implementation.
Great! Though please keep in mind a point in the remainder of your
comments: WebKit (and
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think the sets are disjoint, but they are not identical either.
Agreed. I am trying to arrive at an understanding of which camp Apple
aspires to (designer, implementor or both) and in particular how you
wish to enact that role. Any Rhino hackers (or other
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
What I am asking is this: for each proposal where you'd like early
implementations, before implementation commences please write down
enough information about that proposal in some reasonably understandable
form to represent the current shared understanding of the
On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think the sets are disjoint, but they are not identical
either.
Agreed. I am trying to arrive at an understanding of which camp
Apple aspires to (designer, implementor or both) and in
particular how
On Feb 21, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Feb 21, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
So presenting yourself as a participant with neither of those
supports in place, you're sort of walking into a room, kicking the
legs out from under a table and asking why it's suddenly
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
We're unlikely to have much interest in working on implementing the RI.
Ok. I'm sorry to hear that, but I understand.
As for reading the RI, it seems a lot harder to understand than specs
written in prose. As far as I can tell, only people who have coded
On Feb 21, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
We'd like to be active participant. However, it seems like as
newcomers/outsiders, we do not have enough information available
to participate in early implementation.
Neither does
On Feb 19, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
Finally there is a category I left off the above elaboration, mostly
because it is under-developed in the RI: control mechanisms. There are
dependencies between tail calls, generators and stack inspection,
and I
can't say I fully understand
Seems to me we may have some emerging agreement on the following items.
Please be kind if I'm overstating the consensus, but I believe the
following items start us in the right direction without being too
onerous.
Triage the existing proposals into those that are current and
correct and
Comments below:
This sounds good, but if we've accepted proposals and need detailed
specs, why not write specs? This is not just a matter of wiki
namespace (proposal: vs. spec:). Proposals have emphasized precedents,
use-cases, and anti-use-cases, and considered alternatives. Discussion
27 matches
Mail list logo
