On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Buchner dan...@mozilla.com wrote:
One thing I've heard from many of our in-house developers, is that they
prefer the imperative syntax, with one caveat: we provide an easy way to
allow components
, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Buchner dan...@mozilla.com wrote:
One thing I've heard from many of our in-house developers, is that they
prefer the imperative syntax, with one
On Apr 14, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Scott Miles wrote:
the challenge with creating a normal constructor
Forgive me if my language is imprecise, but the basic notion is that in
general one cannot create a constructor that creates a DOM node because
(most? all?) browsers make under the hood
On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Scott Miles wrote:
Here are four ways to avoid the subclassing problem for custom elements
1) Only allow instances of custome dom elements to be instantiated using
document.createElement(x-foo).
Wearing web developer hat, I never make elements any other
On Apr 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/11/13 12:23 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
So why don't you make register a static method on HTMLElement and then
define the element semantics so it automatically does:
MyElement.register()
This would normally invoke the inherited
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Hello, TC39 peeps! I am happy to have you and your expertise here.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
This can all be expresses, but less clearly and concisely using ES3/5
syntax
On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/11/13 12:55 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/11/13 12:50 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Yes ES6 has class-side inheritance
OK. Should we be doing that with WebIDL interface objects, perhaps? It
would certainly make sense to me to do
On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Should undefined, when provided for a dictionary entry, also be treated
as not present? That is, should passing a dictionary like so:
{ a:
On Nov 12, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Nov 12, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 11/13/11 6:10 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I think you're
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Sorry,
I was making a joke (referencing 1.5.2 of the HTML5 spec), not intending to
be confrontational.
The underlying issue here is just making it possible for Array.isArray to
return true for an Array of DOM nodes that is also enhanced
On Nov 12, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 11/12/11 10:22 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Note that the only specialness of Array instances relates to what happens
when you add new array elements or dynamically change the value of the
length property.
1) In ES5 this is just
On Nov 12, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 11/13/11 6:10 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I think you're drawing a distinction between language level semantics and
library routine behavior which is for practical purposes irrelevant to
everyone outside the ES5 committee...
It's
On Nov 11, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
And to ensure that the object acts as much as possible as an array it
should also have it's [[Class]] set to that of an array. This has
subtle effects on a number of
Note that the only specialness of Array instances relates to what happens when
you add new array elements or dynamically change the value of the length
property.
If the array instance is immutable you can't do any of those things so its
specialness essentially disappears.
So, if you want the
On Nov 11, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
BTW, I think that either the immutable or mutable approach would work.
However, since the collection is not live I don't see why you would really
care
On Nov 11, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
...
This is a problem for ES=5. Filter and all the other similar
Array.prototype functions are specified to produce an object created as if
by calling
To follow up, this issue is https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78
On Jul 19, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jul 19, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/19/11 7:43 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Magnus Kristiansen wrote:
Context: http
On Jul 19, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/19/11 7:43 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Magnus Kristiansen wrote:
Context: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110428#l-707
Current browsers disagree about how to handlediv
id=x/divscriptvar x;/script. Webkit
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
outlined in
of the
actual WebIDL language from the specification of any of its language bindings.
Allen Wirfs-Brock
Microsoft
.
That is what we want to fix.
Allen Wirfs-Brock
Microsoft
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com]
I expect there are relatiively few such capabilities, and little
interest in depending on new ones, and therefore we do not really have
a general ongoing problem of language design.
We have an ongoing problem of
+1
-Original Message-
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:56 AM
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; HTML WG; es-discuss
Subject: Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG
-Original Message-
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
...
But ECMAScript doesn't have a way to distinguish normal property
access from property access via lexical scoping.
In the ES5 specification it does. Reference that that resolve to property
accesses
are
24 matches
Mail list logo
