Re: expanding comments proposal

2016-10-20 Thread Isiah Meadows
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 21:35 Isiah Meadows wrote: > Please, let's not add a new pragma to the language. `"use strict"` was a > hack to enable some sanity while still remaining back-compatible, but it's > not something we should repeat IMHO. (TC39 unanimously > ...I sent

Re: expanding comments proposal

2016-10-20 Thread Isiah Meadows
Please, let's not add a new pragma to the language. `"use strict"` was a hack to enable some sanity while still remaining back-compatible, but it's not something we should repeat IMHO. (TC39 unanimously I would, on the other hand, strongly support dropping most of the restriction in section 16,

Re: Re: Alternative way to achieve cancelable promise

2016-10-20 Thread Kagami Rosylight
Hi Bergi: >You're not the only one who is unsatisfied with the current proposal :-) Also >have a look at Great! I’m yet to read them but I definitely will soon to discuss more. >Promises are result values that can be passed to multiple consumers, and not >every consumer should be allowed to

Re: expanding comments proposal

2016-10-20 Thread Gert Cuykens
Ok, what about a "use strict comments"; solution to prevent web breaking? On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > Overloading comments is not likely to be accepted as a new feature; doing so > could be dramatically "web breaking". > > You may be interested

Re: expanding comments proposal

2016-10-20 Thread Rick Waldron
Overloading comments is not likely to be accepted as a new feature; doing so could be dramatically "web breaking". You may be interested in this: https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2014-09/sept-25.md#types Rick On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:14 PM Gert Cuykens

expanding comments proposal

2016-10-20 Thread Gert Cuykens
Currently there are two ways to make comments `//` and `/**/` in Ecma262. I think if Ecma262 has a broader way of implementing comments it can open up the door for third party type checkers and leave the burden onto others without the need for transpiling. I am looking into how close ES20XX

Re: Power operator, why does -2**3 throws?

2016-10-20 Thread Claude Pache
The existence of traps in the language is not an argument for adding other ones. On the contrary, we must learn from previous problematic design decisions, in order not to repeat the same errors. Also, the language feeling more quirky is less a severe issue than the language inducing to

Re: Power operator, why does -2**3 throws?

2016-10-20 Thread Kevin Smith
It's a committee-compromise grammar hack. On 3:52AM, Thu, Oct 20, 2016 medikoo wrote: > ES is already not free from such cases, e.g. `!'property' in object` will > also not resolve as most will expect. > > I understand and agree that case is ambigous and is

Re: Power operator, why does -2**3 throws?

2016-10-20 Thread medikoo
ES is already not free from such cases, e.g. `!'property' in object` will also not resolve as most will expect. I understand and agree that case is ambigous and is problematic. It just feels very controversial to me that it was decided that this case will be handled differently than others that