Hello ES4 fans,
I have now read the recently posted whitepaper. I marked up my printed
copy with many comments in the margins, and I am sharing them with the
list now.
Please note that this does not constitute an official Apple position,
just some personal off-the-cuff opinions. I have
On Jan 18, 2008, at 10:49 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
If, in order make the presence of an explicit form convenient, we
have to add sugar for it as an additional form of expression-closure
-- goto call-expr() means {goto call-expr();} -- I don't think
it's the end of the world. I do
On Jan 21, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jan 21, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Conversions (implicit and hardcoded among the
built-in types representing and wrapping primitives) that might
defeat PTC may
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Adam Peller wrote:
Each of us has some pet addition we think would be a great addition
to
the language. const, decimal, getters and setters, destructing
assignment -- all these have come up just this morning!. Each of
these
makes the language larger and
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
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
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 25, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
Pentium basic arithmetic operations take from 1 cycle (pipelined add,
rarely achieved in practice) up to 39 cycles (divide). The figures
at the
URL above for decimal FP software are worst-cases (for example, for
Add, a
full-length
On Feb 26, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
Please comment. --lars
line-terminator-
normalization.txt___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Has the web compatibility impact of
On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
Please comment. --lars
line-terminator-
normalization.txt___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4
On Mar 8, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
Last call for the line continuation spec:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=spec:line_continuation_in_strings
(Last call = it will be taken into the language spec within a week
or
so unless there's opposition now.)
This (and the line
On Mar 10, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
We are the WG. Are you saying that substantive discussions
of your proposals are not welcome? Not sure what the point
of participating is if that's the case.
Sorry, I didn't realize that I find it abhorrent qualified as
substantive
On Mar 10, 2008, at 9:54 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
ES3 has several abstraction mechanisms:
* lambda abstraction, which it gets approximately as right as Scheme!
* objects as a generalization of records, which has some pros and cons
* prototype-based sharing of common behavior, which is used
On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
The optional second argument to make propertyIsEnumerable a setter has
some practical problems:
1) It violates the very strong norm that getter and setter functions
are separate and have their own different arguments. It will make
On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I'd like to propose the following three alternatives to the
current proposal:
1) Remove the feature entirely from ES4 (as part of the judicious
feature
I'd appreciate if someone could give me access to the feature
spreadsheet to enter Apple's votes:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pFIHldY_CkszsFxMkQOReAQgid=2
(My Google account is maciej at gmail dot com).
- Maciej
___
Es4-discuss
On May 27, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
What's at issue is whether and why unqualified import matters in any
object, even the global object only, since the NAS proposal did not
allow unqualified import even at global level, and the use-case for
unqualified import was dismissed
On May 27, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Mike Shaver wrote:
2008/5/27 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It could save a lot of complexity, by not requiring any first-class
support
for namespace lookup on arbitrary objects.
Is the expectation then that having two lookup models, one for global
On May 28, 2008, at 10:38 PM, Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK) wrote:
I have uploaded to the wiki (link, see bottom of the page) a first
draft of the specification for ES3.1. This is in the form of in-
place edits and markups to the ES3 specification. As you will notice
when reading through, there
On May 20, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I know for a fact that not passing the thisObject as the third param
in methods like map etc will break real world applications such as
Gmail. If JScript does not follow the defacto standard, developers
will have
the proposal for now.
pratap
PS: I'll have this on the agenda for further discussion in our next
conf. call.
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:22 AM
To: Douglas Crockford
Cc: Erik Arvidsson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pratap
On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I'm trying to understand the nature of the ES3.1 - ES4 subset
relationship that this committee has agreed to.
p69 12.10. Disallowing the with statement in strict mode breaks the
ES3.1 - ES4 subset relationship (we've found no compelling reason
On Jun 14, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Mark Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What
other with do people imagine is compatible with strict
mode? I must have missed
On Jun 19, 2008, at 11:20 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jun 19, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Try putting this in a Firefox address toolbar:
javascript:alert('foo' in window); var foo = 42; alert(delete foo);
alert(foo)
You will get true (because the var binding -- not
On Jun 25, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
In spec terms, WebKit's behavior can be explained in
terms of strings having additional DontDelete ReadOnly properties.
Let me get this straight:
Webkit's behavior can be explained in terms of String objects having
additional properties
On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have not seen any reports of such problems. If it were common to
put
random numeric properties on String objects, I expect we would have
had a
bug report
On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
At today’s ES 3.1 conference call (see http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=meetings:minutes_jun_24_2008)
we agreed to adopt the essence of the proposal below and to use the
subset name “cautious” to referred to the set of restrictions
On Jun 25, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
It would be great if somebody wanted to work on a proof of concept
ES 3.1 implementation in a open code bases such as such as Webkit or
Rhino.
If anybody is interested in volunteering send a not to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We would gladly
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
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 3:28 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see, yes there is a potential eval tax. If I thought this was
really a concern (and as you say, we already have the issue for
catch and such) I'd be more
(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
On Jul 10, 2008, at 6:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Jul 11, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Jeff Dyer wrote:
On 7/11/08 3:01 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
2) How is interoperability to be demonstrated? Do we accept good-
faith
claims of support, or do we need a test suite?
I'd say that good faith is good enough. It's easy enough for us to
check
On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
The WebKit project will accept patches for any feature of 3.1 that
has been reconciled with 4, and we will likely devote Apple
resources to implementing such features as well, so SquirrelFish
will likely
On Jul 16, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Just wait, reify may yet end up as the last name standing...
Methods don't reify things, the language definition does. Property
descriptors are reified in ES3.1 whether or not you ever call the
method.
I think getPropertyDescriptor is
On Jul 16, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The most common use case seems to be the one where the target object
is a newly instantiated object without any properties of its own.
That use case (at least for variants of extend that only take a
single source object) is most
On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:24 AM, Dave Herman wrote:
We should take this problem seriously. ...
Dynamic scope is very bad.
Specifically:
- Classes are supposed to provide integrity, but dynamic scope makes
the
internals of code brittle; any variable reference inside the
implementation
On Aug 13, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
In light of Harmony, and the recurrent over- and under-cross-posting,
I'd like to merge the [EMAIL PROTECTED] and es4-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lists into [EMAIL PROTECTED] The old
archives will remain available via the web, and the old aliases will
41 matches
Mail list logo
