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. Discussio
On Feb 21, 2008, at 11:07 PM, Michael O'Brien wrote:
> 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 exis
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 thos
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 unders
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 anyon
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
> signi
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 on
On Feb 21, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
> 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
>> understa
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
> pa
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 t
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
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: WebKi
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 point
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
On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Michael O'Brien wrote:
> My recommendation would be:
>
> - Add comments and overview inside the RI code itself.
> - Create an addendum to Lar's document that drills down on key
> topics to
> provide more exact operational semantics and details.
Lively exchange here
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".
>> 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 pa
Graydon,
>> 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 examples o
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
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 rew
If I may be so bold, I think Maciej is saying something similar to what
I was saying, we need some more design notes
to efficiently create implementations.
Currently, we have a catch-22. We need a spec to efficiently create an
implementation, but we won't have a spec until we have implementati
Can I use `super` in a prototype function or a function that I apply?
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
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 point an
engineer to and say "implement this".
There's c
On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Now we could say something about the outer language and the kinds of
>> objects that could be injected. But now the secure dialect in the
>> sandbox is spreading it
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"
perspec
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
> 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 pro
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Neil Mix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 fu
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
> Is there a published specification that all these implementors will
> be using?
We're implementing from proposals augmented by trac tickets and other
docs including Cormac's formalization of the type system, plus
existing extended impleme
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 AOP
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 is
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 implementa
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 incli
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
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 <[EMA
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 synt
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 http://group
[I have just subscribed to es4-discuss@mozilla.org, but haven't yet found
the archives, so I may be missing some content, here.]
Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/02/2008 22:39:38:
> On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Adam Peller wrote:
>
> > >Each of us has some pet addition we think woul
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 relat
39 matches
Mail list logo
