On 7/25/07, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/25/07, Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars T Hansen-2 wrote:
On 7/25/07, Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this as two issues.
1) The need for Collections/Data Structures.
2) The desire for shorthand access to
It would be nice to have Array literal syntax declare it's ArrayType
before the declaration of the array.
For example:
1. var x : ArrayString = [ foo, bar, document.title, getAnotherString() ];
2. var x = [ foo, bar, document.title, getAnotherString() ] : String;
example 1 is more clear to
I was wondering about the new JSON methods:
Object.prototype.toJSONString
String.prototype.parseJSON
to me, parseJSON seems like it should not be a String prototype method.
I'm thinking about other parse type of methods, like Date.parse( s );
Here, it's fairly obvious what parse should return
On 8/26/07, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/26/07, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/spec/spec.html
Bottom of the page.
I found that it was convenient for printing.
Am I'm reading another out-of-date spec?
Very
On 9/3/07, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/3/07, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/3/07, Lars T Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/07, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
As we say around here, some prefer the mother and some prefer the
daughter. There's
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
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 backwards compatibility
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:
js var Op = Object.prototype;
js Op.foo = 42
(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.propertyIsEnumerable(foo));
false
js
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, Garrett Smith wrote:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
In this bug, dated 2000, Brendan and David agreed that
isPropertyEnumerable should
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
c = (new C).constructor;// A
snip I meant an enumerable superclass property
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 it is, unless the function either:
On 23/09/2007, Brendan Eich
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.prototype.hasOwnProperty('constructor'); //true
F.prototype.propertyIsEnumerable
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 did not build this).
js (new function(){}).constructor
[function
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 confusing to
developers.
I've never
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 yet to do this.
Including some changes
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
by a long shot) that we have hosted at http
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 =
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 function, for example, a
NodeList in Safari
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
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, arg1, ...argN).
So these are equivalent
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 post by
Lasse
(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, 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 copy
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 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
good
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;
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;
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] ||
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
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 :
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 restrictions on the type of the key) - just use objects
Which is better?
var nodes : int;
var widgetMap = Widget.instances; // a map.
var it:Iteratorstring = widgetMap.getKeys();
-- this: --
try {
widgetMap.get(it.next()).hide();
}
catch(Exception e) {
if(e instanceof StopIteration) {
}
}
-- or this: --
while(it.hasNext()) {
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:Iteratorstring = widgetMap.getKeys();
-- this: --
try {
widgetMap.get(it.next
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:
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.
No it shouldn't. The grouping syntax specifically doesn't call
GetValue
Will ES4 have a simple date formatter?
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
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 in
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: ES4 draft: Error classes
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12
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? Is
, 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
Garrett Smith wrote:
Is there typed null?
If so, then typed null could typecheck for Array-like-ness
-- 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 Shaver wrote:
On Sun, Mar
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
surprised it's been hanging around in for so long.
Garrett
sniip
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:12, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
--
erik
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
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
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) problems
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
relatively
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;
}
}
A
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
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.
That's funny.
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
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 text,
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
So it should probably read one of:-
1
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],
es4
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 security
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
was felt
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 String(abc)
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 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
(putting this back on the list
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
property, but is not
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?
I worded that very poorly. It was in response
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 mistake and hit 'Reply'. Then, realizing that, I put
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
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
2008/7/15 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?
__| ES
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 are very
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
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're prev
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 two
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 static
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're prev response seems to have come from
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 scope makes
the
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 the
72 matches
Mail list logo
