On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Grant Husbands <esdisc...@grant.x43.net>wrote:
> Russell Leggett wrote: > > If you desperately need it, you should be able to make a library for it, > and > > then if you need the extra syntax, add an extra compile step > > I was simply making sure everyone was on the same page as regards e4x > and was making suggestions to try to bridge the gap. I don't need it > myself, though I imagine the "you" there wasn't necessarily aimed at > me. > Yeah, not directed at you. Couldn't remember how the thread started. You seemed to be an advocate so that's where I went with it. Sorry. > > > I'm not saying its an insignificant effort, but it seems fairly > > straightforward. The standardized grammar for it is defined as an > extension > > to Ecmascript after all. > > Though source to source processors are a source of significant > friction (complicating build and debug), this would indeed be > something for the community of e4x supporters to consider. Hopefully, > the right people will see this thread. > It is a source of friction, but its also extremely commonplace now. I imagine something like an e4x pre-processor would output code that was pretty easy to debug as well, and it sounds like we'll be seeing source mapped debuggers soon enough. > > I think that assignment into quasis may yet be useful, but perhaps it > doesn't belong in this thread. > > Regards, > Grant Husbands. >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
