Pardon the top post, Brandon already seemed to dig into this
proposal with his typical surgical deftness. I just couldn't
resist relating some Flash history. As the saying goes, been
there, done that. Here's the abridged version of ActionScript's
history:
AS1 ~= ES3
AS2 == ES3 + classes as
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Thomas Reilly wrote:
... and all
that static information sure doesn't hurt when it comes to
performance (can I say that much Brendan? ;-)
If you've got it, use it -- no point in dropping type information
during a source to bytecode or other transformation. Just
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 13:45 -0700, Brendan Eich wrote:
You really should read the papers, and Andreas Gal's blog.
Probably. I'm not an expert in [dynamic] optimisations, my line of work
is mostly related to static analysis. Do you suggest any specific papers
other than the blog ?
Runtime
2008/3/24 Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would in particular like comments on eval.
Why does the operator form of eval have the name 'intrinsic::eval' (in
addition to plain 'eval')? Either eval has the distinction of being
the only namespaced operator in the language, or else this is a pun.
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
Deprecation does not really buy you anything. Most people will never know
something is deprecated and even if they do, they will most likely continue
to use it. (Take escape and unescape as example.)
Yes, it would be nice to have a Uri class but that can be implemented by
libraries and
If ES4 users want to lock a module down in a static-typing sense,
they can annotate all API entry points with non-like types (wrap
would allow untyped client code to pass plain old objects and arrays,
at a price). Further self-imposed BD programming inside the module
is optional in my
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Erik Arvidsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deprecation does not really buy you anything. Most people will never know
something is deprecated and even if they do, they will most likely continue
to use it. (Take escape and unescape as example.)
No, actually, if
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
surprised it's been hanging around in for so long.
Most people don't know about
On Mar 25, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Take Object.prototype.eval, for example. Nobody uses that much
anymore. If it's removed from Mozilla,
It has been removed -- test Firefox 3, any beta.
/be
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
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
surprised it's
-Original Message-
From: Garrett Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25. mars 2008 08:43
To: Erik Arvidsson
Cc: Lars Hansen; es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: the global object
WRT escape, that has seen much less use lately. All the
libraries are using
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
Sent: 25. mars 2008 06:47
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: the global object
2008/3/24 Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would in particular like
I think I need to understand the following before I can comprehend the rest:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note also that
eval(s)
is the same as
null::eval(s)
so arguments about 'namespaced operators' are probably not right.
Not right in
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
Sent: 25. mars 2008 10:30
To: Lars Hansen
Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: the global object
I think I need to understand the following before I can
comprehend the
Was let*, possibly under some other name, ever discussed/proposed?
For let definitions, I think the following is supposed to work:
{
let x = n;
let y = foo(x);
...
}
That is, x and y should be bound sequentially, not in parallel, right?
Neither, actually -- for let declarations.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Lars Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not right in what sense? I'm not sure whether you're
claiming that the operator form of intrinsic::eval isn't a
namespaced operator (in which case, how is it not a pun?) or
that it's not the *only* namespaced
Created as ticket #375:
http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/375
Dave
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
18 matches
Mail list logo
