Never mind... Sorry for the messages, will attempt to make future post more to the stander of this mailing list.
E-S4L N-S4L > On Sep 9, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "L2L 2L" <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you.... Did why didn't he say so instead of crying out to a mod? > > Are you a mod? > > E-S4L > N-S4L > >> On Sep 9, 2014, at 6:47 PM, "John Barton" <johnjbar...@google.com> wrote: >> >> You can find lots of information about design discussions by reading the >> ecmascript wiki, for example: >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies. The other good >> resource is the past posts to this list and the meeting minutes, >> http://esdiscuss.org/. >> >> In general, the content that is painstakingly written down in the ES6 >> specification has been designed and discussed in great detail. The >> appropriate level of comments on those features needs to be equally detailed >> and thoughtful. >> Random comments about how you personally don't like some aspects of the >> design are better directed to your followers on twitter or perhaps a blog >> post. And of course you are free not to use any new features you dislike. I >> believe that is what Alex was attempting to communicate. >> >> jjb >> >> >>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:25 PM, L2L 2L <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Anyone care to justify the use case for the proxy object? >>> >>> Yes I understand it'll let us defined the behavior of an object. But >>> couldn't that be a method for the Object constructor? >>> >>> E-S4L >>> N-S4L >>> >>>> On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:55 PM, "L2L 2L" <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Huh? ... Should I be doing so? ... Huh? >>>> >>>> E-S4L >>>> N-S4L >>>> >>>>> On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:54 PM, "Alex Russell" <slightly...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Is there seriously going to be no attempt whatsoever to moderate this >>>>> list? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:42 AM, L2L 2L <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> ... This language is turning note in an application than a programming >>>>>> language. >>>>>> >>>>>> It could of been a commonjs thing... Long live ES5+. >>>>>> >>>>>> I like the let, and const syntax add on. Foo feature and fits into the >>>>>> language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes ai agree they should release as CSS is releasing. >>>>>> >>>>>> E-S4L >>>>>> N-S4L >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Sep 9, 2014, at 6:36 AM, "Herby Vojčík" <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > L2L 2L wrote: >>>>>> >> It worry me... That a community is writing the spec... That a >>>>>> >> community >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Well, not the community is writing the spec. AWB is. :-) >>>>>> > And he can be pretty tough, I more or less stopped reading this list >>>>>> > thoroughly after his letting one of the issues I saw as important left >>>>>> > ignored. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Nevertheless: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> is writing the spec.... Look like W3C... That everyone is striving to >>>>>> >> get what they want in the language. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Most of us are ES5 developers.... Meaning we don't delve into ES6 and >>>>>> >> what else to come. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> let, const, and a couple of others spec implantation is okay. These >>>>>> >> help >>>>>> >> better the language... But your adding feature and no trying to better >>>>>> >> what's already there. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> You might as well call yourself W3C equivalent.E >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> As long as one can write compliant ES5. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> A new more stricture spec/style is being made. It's call ES5+ meaning >>>>>> >> that all compliant code is to be writing in ES5 and additional add on >>>>>> >> as >>>>>> >> the let and const statement plus other +. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> What I see is more functionality of the browser api then an actually >>>>>> >> language. A lot of us hope this spec die, as did ES4. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Most of what you're adding could have been another add on spec... Like >>>>>> >> commonjs add on. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I liked the idea of ES6 pretty much. The commitee was pretty strict in >>>>>> > not adding too much, mostly paving cowpaths, had some roadmap, >>>>>> > according to which ES6 should be approved in end of 2013. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Now is second half of 2014, and lots of issues are not closed yet, >>>>>> > from what I see. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I got delusioned as well. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Isn't the model of big new editions of spec over; in the times we live >>>>>> > now, with two-week frequent releases? I think ES6 will never see the >>>>>> > light when taken from this approach. That's why, shouldn't the release >>>>>> > policy be changed so that: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - More frequent, albeit smaller, releases are embraced as a rule; >>>>>> > - ES5.5 will be scheduled (and delivered) as a Christmas present in >>>>>> > 2014, selecting only small subset of less controversial items (let, >>>>>> > const, Reflect global object with all API applicable to ES5.5, >>>>>> > possibly block scope; no modules, no classes (unless there is >>>>>> > consensus they are already near to perfect, though my issue was about >>>>>> > new/super inconsistency), no symbols, no proxies, no for-of, >>>>>> > iterators, generators, comprehensions, no promises); >>>>>> > - schedule ES5.6 (and deliver it) for July 2015 with, for example, >>>>>> > for-of, iterators, generators, comprehensions (it's all related, so in >>>>>> > a single set) and if possible, classes and/or promises; >>>>>> > ... etc. >>>>>> > Possibly switching to 6 when something big gets in (symbols, classes, >>>>>> > proxies). >>>>>> > >>>>>> > This would be nice. Really nice. To all of us who want to get ES.next >>>>>> > and actually start developing in it. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks, Herby >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
