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
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
I completely agree, chapter 16 needs to carry forward. We don't want to forbid
implementations from experimenting with future extensions.
When there has been broad agreement across major implements on an extension
(including the full semantics), I think it makes sense to standardize that
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
There was two parts to may message, an informal overview of the proposed
semantics and the excerpt from the actual formal (and I use that term
advisedly) specification of the semantics. I was using the term top-level in
the informal part of the message to refer to code that wasn't in a nested
11 matches
Mail list logo
