On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's no secret that the JavaScript standards body, Ecma's Technical
> Committee 39, has been split for over a year, with some members
> favoring ES4, a major fourth edition to ECMA-262, and others
> advocating ES3.1 based on
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 sco
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:28 PM
> ...
>> You&#
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You're prev response seems to have come from the discussion of
>> Object.create.
>
> No? We've been discussing the viability of a new Object.extend() method to be
> introduced in ES3.1.
The title of the thread is "object
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> 1) It seems like Object.clone as you have described it is not suitable
> for the "mixin" type use case where an object gets properties/methods
> from
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not true. YAHOO.lang.extend uses prototypal inheritance.
>
> YAHOO.lang.extend is similar in name only - YAHOO.lang.augmentObject is the
> one that's actually similar to the functionality used by other code bases.
>
You'
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> Thanks for pulling together all the various versions of Object.extend.
Not all.
> It's useful to have them in one place.
>
> There are a couple of things you mentioned that I wanted to clarify.
>
> Neither O
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:37 AM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wanted to bring up some further evidence for the widespread use of an
> extend() method. Here are the top 5 JavaScript libraries and their associated
> versions of "Object.extend()":
>
> There are a couple points that a
2008/7/15 Allen Wirfs-Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've up loaded to the wiki a new document titled: "Proposed ECMAScript
3.1
> Static Object Functions: Use Cases and Rationale"
>
>
A couple of questions for you:
My first question: How does an ES3.1 "sealed" object relate to fixtures?
__
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:41 PM, David Flanagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
> Frankly, though, I imagine that defining properties will be more common
> than reflecting on them, and I don't see anything wrong with a long name
> that explicitly describes the function: getProp
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Right now, the best I can come up with is that it should be a relatively
> efficient way to test for the existence of a possibly inherited
2008/7/11 Jeff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These specs should be the basis for technical discussions of ES4 on
> es4-discuss and at the July 23 Oslo meeting.
>
What about operators:
&&=
||=
?
Garrett
>
> Jd
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discu
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 provid
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> to list ->
>
> I am not the one replying to sender only -- all of my replies to you have
> cc'ed the list.
I know. I had a mista
to list ->
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> A program that called pop() on an object w/no length would know right
>> away if it failed.
>
> Why do you say that?
>
Back to list ->
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK) wrote:
>
>> The side effect is as follows: if "this" does not have a "length"
>> property, it ends up getting one; if "this" does have a length
>> proper
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2008, at 11:45
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> Garrent:
It's Garrett, BTW.
>
> I have not seen any reports of such problems. If it were common to put
> random numeric properties on String objects, I expe
2008/6/24 Allen Wirfs-Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Assuming the string index semantics I defined in my previous message, what
> should the effect of setting a numeric property on a string whose property
> name is a valid character position into the string?
>
>
>
> For example:
>
>var s = new St
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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]>
> Named func
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Garrett,
> I apologize.
> I was not ignoring you. Yes, I am interested in feedback!
OK, but you seem to have misunderstood me.
>
> The initial Array generics proposal did not include the thisObj param as it
> w
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Garrett,
> I apologize.
> I was not ignoring you. Yes, I am interested in feedback!
>
> The initial Array generics proposal did not include the thisObj param as it
> was felt that it could open the door to some s
es from non-subscribers are automatically rejected. Please
subscribe to the list first before attempting to post, or ensure that
you are posting using the address you subscribed with.
-- Forwarded message ------
From: "Garrett Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMA
fwd to list.
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/19 Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It would be sufficient and more correct to say: "throw a TypeError"
> rather than "throw a TypeError exception&q
2008/5/19 Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have uploaded to the wiki a draft proposal (link) for Array generics.
> I have extracted the Array portion of the ES3 spec, added a rationale (with
> hyperlinks) at the beginning, and made relevant changes to the included
> section 15.4 te
Hello,
Does anyone else hate PDF?
I want to be able to link to, and discuss this. PDF does not allow me
to do this. It is difficult to copy paste between pages.
What is wrong with HTML?
Garrett
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
http
That sore thumb propertyIsEnumerable.
propertyIsEnumerable, as a setter, sets the DontEnum flag for the
object's own property. A value of 'false' makes the prop not show up
in - for in.
propertyIsEnumerable, as a getter, gets the value of the negation of
the DontEnum flag, and does not check the p
2008/4/17 Adam Peller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Properly formatting dates, solution (1), in ES is a lot of work.
> >
>
> Indeed it is.
I can see you've invested considerable time and effort into this problem.
> A couple of Javascript toolkits have taken a crack at this
> p
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/3/31 Nathan de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Without being part of a standard such as ES4...
>
> It is a library problem. The ES4 language spec is not the place to fix
> every standard library deficiency.
>
Tha
Sometimes errors might happen outside of an assert.
Then the developer would have to try to rely on other things, like
Spidermonkey's error.lineNumber and error.stack, or even
window.onerror, even though it is buggy.
It would be useful to get more error detail for free (w/o having to
predefine an
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Peter Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want mutability, you can define methods as vars in the first place.
>
> class Foo {
>
> // can be modified on a per-instance basis
> public var f : function (a:T):S = function (a:T):S {
> return null;
> }
>
2008/3/31 Nathan de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 00:39 +0200, Igor Bukanov wrote:
> > Date.prototype.toLocaleFormat(format) in SpiderMonkey provides access
> > exactly to strftime functionality.
>
> As with prior discussion regarding PTC, being "in SpiderMonkey" is
> relat
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Douglas Crockford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> > And over-minimizing a language imposes a complexity tax on programmers
> > using it.
That is true.
> > To decide whether to evolve JS or shrink it, you need only look at two
> > things: 1
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Erik Arvidsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Take Object.prototype.eval, for example. Nobody uses that much
> > anymore. If it's removed from Mozilla, probably some pages will break,
> > but not that many. Most people know better than to use that. I'm
> > surpr
better than to use that. I'm
surprised it's been hanging around in for so long.
Garrett
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:12, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --
> erik
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-dis
There are some global functions that I think should be deprecated and
moved to a relevant class.
encodeURIComponent et al have nothing to do with the Global object.
Same with isNaN, isFinite.
These should be deprecated and moved to the appropriate object. In the
case of encodeURIComponent, that
-- Forwarded message --
From: Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Array Generics and null
To: Dean Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Dean Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike S
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Mike Shaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I suspected that. It is the problem with Google Mail, which exhibited
> > a bug in Firefox.
>
> Sorry, d
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspected that. It is the problem with Google Mail, which exhibited
> a bug in Firefox.
>
> Use case:
> 0) hit reply
> 1) click 'send'
> 2) hit 'stop'
> 3) click
r distraction from my message.
Garrett
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Dean Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume you didn't intend to send this just to me.
>
> I do that a lot too - click "reply" instead of "replay all". :-)
>
> -dean
>
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:01 AM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all -
>
> It seems like there could be a couple solutions:
Objects that are not capable of running in an Array-generic should not
be attempted to run.
Would it make sense to use - like - for all the Array generics?
I know Brendan's a busy guy.
Lars or anyone: Is this open to regular people?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: ES4 Working Group meeting next week (Mt. View)
To: Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PR
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Garrett Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 18. mars 2008 11:57
> > To: Lars Hansen
> > Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
> > Subject: Re: ES
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Didn't know who to follow up to so lamely following up to myself.)
>
> Straw proposal for debugging information and backtraces in
> error objects.
>
> Issues to watch out for:
>
> * Security / privacy problems if debu
It seems to me that a function is a callable object, not the other way
around. As if a Function were an implementation of Callable, where
callable was an interface.
For programs to be concerned more with the object's capability -- what
it can do -- not who constructed it.
Considering how that wou
Hi Dustin,
Well it does, apparently it was called the "splat" operator, which (to
me) sounds a better than "spread". I think it works like:-
var args = [12, true];
new C(...args);
function C( count, isSemiAnnual) {
}
- Maybe one of guys writing the specs can comment on that.
It can be hacked
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Kris Zyp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I've read mention of the weirdness of the timing window between the
> >> property definition and it's marking as non-enumerable. That combined
> >> with the above observation makes me wonder if this should really be
> >>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hixie argued strongly on IRC today for something that does not
> So, rather than add an ugly "dontenum" keyword that would be seldom
> used, the group preferred a built-in method. But this may have been a
> minor mistake.
What is the recommended approach?
Thank you,
Garrett
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
> > Sent: 4. mar
Will ES4 have a simple date formatter?
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
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 19, 2008 10:21 AM, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 2008 1:17 PM, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/02/2008, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > (o.f)(); // =>o
> >
> > This should be window.
>
if(a) {
function b(){ }
}
A block can contain statements. A statement can't start with the
function keyword.
Mozilla's Core JavaScript guide explains that of |b| should be
evaluated as a functionExpression, but this isn't right.
Source:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Re
On Dec 20, 2007 11:29 AM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that we already have a whacky syntax for calling the super
> initializer (which I confess I had forgotten), why not allow apply
> there? It's unambiguous there, since you are only allowed to call the
> super initializer.
On Nov 17, 2007 5:50 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> > Which is better?
> >
> > var nodes : int;
> > var widgetMap = Widget.instances; // a map.
> > var it:Iterator = widgetMap.g
e thing
> is harder to keep clean with a hasNext/next pattern.
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2007 5:30 PM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which is better?
> >
> > var nodes : int;
> > var widgetMap = Widget.instances; // a map.
> > var it:Iter
Which is better?
var nodes : int;
var widgetMap = Widget.instances; // a map.
var it:Iterator = widgetMap.getKeys();
-- this: --
try {
widgetMap.get(it.next()).hide();
}
catch(Exception e) {
if(e instanceof StopIteration) {
}
}
-- or this: --
while(it.hasNext()) {
widgetMap.get(it.
On Nov 11, 2007 7:18 PM, Yuh-Ruey Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
> > JavaScript does not provide basic functionality for unique collections.
> >
>
> It's trivial to implement an efficient Set class even in ES3 (with
> certain restrictio
InterType Declarations
InterType Declarations are a useful Iand popular) way of adding
functionality to an object, usually to the prototype of a constructor.
Lets say I have a class Widget that I want to borrow from:
class Widget {
private function Widget(){}
static {
getByNode : funct
Function findDuplicate is more like "mark duplicates". The side effect
is that it adds a __marker property to each object. As it stands, this
function can not be called more than once. The second call might be
passed a different array, but containing one of those objects that had
the __marker left
I know it's too late for a proposal, but I keep wanting a couple of
things for AOP stuff.
One is a newApply
Creational = {
getByNode : function(el){
if(!this.hasOwnProperty("instances")) this.instances = {};
return this.instances.hasOwnProperty(el.id) && this.instances[el.id] ||
On 11/4/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, Mitch Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
Just curious, but am I the only one having trouble posting replies to
Chris' blog?
I posted a response to his response and answered his question that he
asked me; a
On 11/4/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, Mitch Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
Just curious, but am I the only one having trouble posting replies to
Chris' blog?
I posted a response to his response and answered his question that he
asked me; a
On 11/3/07, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After the heated debate, I took time to write my opinion on the subject,
> for what it's worth :
>
Debate? Where? I didn't see any debate on Chris' blog. It looked more
like something we could expect to see from American politicians; or a
g
On 10/28/07, Douglas Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Sayre wrote:
> > Fighting over the name is pointless. It's not a good name, and web
> > developers call it "JavaScript".
>
> The name is exactly the point. A new language should have a new name. The
> deltas
> from ES3 to the propo
On 10/27/07, Dave Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark,
>
>
> The language is without doubt much larger than it was. Part of this is
> driven by a desire to provide conveniences that in ES3 people are forced
> to simulate, often at cost to both performance and clarity: classes via
> prototypes,
cloneObject( this ); // Error if this is window.
// enumeration is partially broken in IE, this loop will sometimes fail
for( var property in srcObj )
On 10/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have clone objects like this:
> //
On 10/12/07, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this feature might be better to add as a library. I'm working
> on a patch for Mozilla that provides a native JSON implementation like
> so: |new JSON()|. I had been basing the API on Bob's python simplejson
> API, but it looks like Goo
On 10/21/07, Kris Zyp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> http://javascript.crockford.com/prototypal.html
> It is the act of creating a object that inherits from/delegates to the
> provided object. Peter is suggesting sugar for one of the important
> mechanisms in a prototypal language. I believe the "
more...
http://dhtmlkitchen.com/learn/js/enumeration/conclusion.jsp
On 10/21/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know of two industry-scale implementations under way, in addition
> to Mozilla's Tamarin project, and Michael O'Brien (mbedthis.com), all
> implementing ES4 in the next six
(fwd to list - I clicked the wrong button again...)
On 10/21/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know of two industry-scale implementations under way, in addition
> to Mozilla's Tamarin project, and Michael O'Brien (mbedthis.com), all
> implementing ES4 in the next six to nine months.
On 10/21/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know of two industry-scale implementations under way, in addition
> to Mozilla's Tamarin project, and Michael O'Brien (mbedthis.com), all
> implementing ES4 in the next six to nine months. There's no reason,
> zero, apart from will to do some
On 10/21/07, Peter Michaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a plan for a "clone" function in ES4?
>
> Object.prototype.clone = function() {
> function F() {}
> F.prototype = o;
> return new F();
> };
>
> The earliest reference I have found to this function is a
On 10/21/07, Yuh-Ruey Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've been watching ES4 development and occasionally contributing input,
> and I have noticed a somewhat disturbing trend. ES4 is getting ever more
> and more complex.
>
> I understand ES4 is a multi-paradigm language and so must b
On 10/11/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> >> If you want to apply or call a non-function
> >> callable, use Function.apply(callable, thisp, argArray) or
> >> Function.call(callable, thisp
Incomplete sentence
> Microsoft often says that it is necessary to retain backwards
> compatibility. I would hope they would [not continue on this path.] <-- EDIT.
>
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/e
On 10/11/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> > On 10/10/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> >>if (it is Callable) ...
&g
On 10/10/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>if (it is Callable) ...
>
>
> The |is| operator tests universal or Platonic type, which involves
> shared, immutable type descriptors that do not vary acr
On 10/10/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> > Typechecking is a problem.
> >
> > typeof is limited and allows host objects to return anything. The
> > problem is that some host objects return &qu
Typechecking is a problem.
typeof is limited and allows host objects to return anything. The
problem is that some host objects return "function", for example, a
NodeList in Safari. This is perfectly legal, according to the spec.
Checking instanceof between frames doesn't work.
var i = document.g
On 10/8/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> >> I personally believe that the unsound, untestable/non-executable ES3
> >> spec is a rathole we should avoid. The errata (which are not complete
> >>
On 9/24/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:maintenance_of_es3
> >
> > The docs for ES3 are gonna be updated?
>
> No commitment from the group
On 9/10/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> > The fact that the method
> > was called propertyIsEnumerable instead of isPropertyEnumerable is not
> > great, but the way propertyIsEnumerable is designed is
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:maintenance_of_es3
The docs for ES3 are gonna be updated?
Including some changes to the spec?
On 9/24/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JS1.7 shipped in Firefox 2 and it is "done". This list is for discussion of
> ECMA-262 Edition 4 (
On 9/23/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> >>> in no case is the value of (new function(){}).constructor Function.
> >>
> > It shouldn't be, but it is in OSX Ref Impl. (I di
On 9/23/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/09/2007, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Function objects get a non-enumerable constructor.
> > function F(){};
> > F.constructor === Function; // true
> > F.prototyp
On 9/23/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 23/09/2007, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> 2. (new function(){}).constructor should be Function.
>
> > On Sep 23, 2007, at 8:59 AM, liorean wrote:
> > > I agree. And in ES3 i
On 9/23/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 22/09/2007, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > What I've found is that it's always giving wrong constructor property
> > > > with inheritance chains.
> > &
On 9/22/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/09/2007, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What I've found is that it's always giving wrong constructor property
> > with inheritance chains.
> >
> > A <-- B <-- C
>
On 9/11/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the one hand, __proto__ is another potential security hole, and it
> prevents implementations from sharing prototype objects among multiple
> documents -- the link may be read-only but the object isn't. Function
> B called from function A w
I read through Waldemar Horwat's Errata and did not find it here:
http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/E262-3-errata.html
here's the spec, including errata:
Every built-in function and every built-in constructor has the
Function protot
ue to the nature of the scan (using the narcissus parser in the
> browser), the scan was fairly slow. I can use a different approach and
> cover more pages if there is more interest. If not, I'll let this rest here.
>
>
> Brendan Eich wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 2007, at 10:06 PM
(fwd to list)...
On 9/10/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Neil Mix wrote:
>
> > I think this is what Garrett is referring to:
> >
> > js> function f() {}
> > js> f.prototype.foo = "blah";
> > blah
> > js> var x = new f();
> > js> print(x.propertyIsEnumerabl
On 9/10/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> > And my point was that it appears to duplicate functionality of
> > hasOwnProperty in a differently named method.
>
> The two functions are different:
>
On 9/10/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
> > It's possible to crawl the prototype chain, true. I did not know some
> > implementations crawl the __proto__ for propertyIsEnumerable. Which
> > on
sorry, propertyIsEnumerable.
On 9/8/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
>
> In this bug, dated 2000, Brendan and David agreed that
> isPropertyEnumerable should check the prototype chain.
>
> It should not
On 9/9/07, zwetan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> when you see the gazillion libraries out there, either for Ajax,
> ActionScript, etc.
> the main common pattern you can see is that people stick to their libs,
> and do not agregate their findings in one unified library,
> so in the case of a URI clas
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
In this bug, dated 2000, Brendan and David agreed that
isPropertyEnumerable should check the prototype chain.
It should not backwards compatibility, but such functionality in the
language seems necessary. How to check enumerable attribute, includ
I've decided to propose a URI class to deal with the handling of URIs
that is so prevalent in Ajax apps and also in Flash and to a lesser
extent, Adobe Reader.
I propose this idea here because noticed that there are other places
besides the web that can use it (Flash, Reader). A URI class could be
Why not bind prototype methods?
"Instance methods are functions that are defined without the static
attribute and inside a class definition. Instance methods are
associated with an instance of the class they are defined in. Instance
methods can override or implement inherited class or interface
me
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
