My views on this are:
- There should be only *one* syntax for specifying namespaces in definitions.
It shouldn't be
ns::foo = xyz
in one place (object initializers) and
ns var foo = xyz
someplace else (variable definitions).
- The historical reason I chose the syntax
ns var foo = xyz
for
> -Original Message-
> From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > I think you're trying to say something else too but I can't figure
> > out what it is, something about the ns in ns::id being a literal in
> > a stronger sense than what I just outlined?
>
> Let me try to be clea
On Apr 11, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
> There might be a slight misunderstanding here. In my example, the
> name C.ns is constant, not a general expression; C needs to be a
> class, and ns needs to be a static namespace definition inside that
> class (suitably available).
Oh, ok.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah! Of course.
>
> The natural thing to spec would be that the text of the expression
> would be part of (all of?) the "message" of the exception object
> in the 1-arg case.
Or would it be better for AssertionError to h
There might be a slight misunderstanding here. In my example, the name
C.ns is constant, not a general expression; C needs to be a class, and
ns needs to be a static namespace definition inside that class (suitably
available).
In my (repentant) opinion the ns in _any_ ns::id expression must
refe
Ah! Of course.
The natural thing to spec would be that the text of the expression
would be part of (all of?) the "message" of the exception object
in the 1-arg case.
--lars
> -Original Message-
> From: P T Withington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> P T Withington
> Sent: 11. a
Is there any way the value thrown in the 1-arg case could be the
'text' of arg1? It's so painful to get an assertion and not know what
it is...
On 2008-04-11, at 13:16 EDT, Lars Hansen wrote:
> We talked about debugging information and an assertion form on
> es4-discuss a while ago, in a thre
On Apr 11, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
(It _is_ an indication that the syntax used in
the object initializers is not fully general, though, since it only
allows simple identifiers in the namespace position. Sigh.)
I've argued that JS's literal property identifiers in object
initia
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
> Sent: 11. april 2008 11:10
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org; liorean
> Subject: Re: Strict mode recap
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We talked about debugging information and an assertion form on
es4-discuss a while ago, in a thread about the Error object. As a
result of that discussion, I'm sending out a draft for an "assert"
expression form. In addition, the Error object draft will be updated to
accomodate a new subclass Ass
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree with this, too. I certainly wouldn't want to mandate
>
> var public::x
>
> in classes and wouldn't really want to write it myself. But there's
> some value in having a single, canonical syntactic form
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> One motivation is that programmers are likely to prefer the Java-like
> syntax where the namespace (in its role as access control) shows
> up early:
>
> public var count =
> private var key =
>
> I really think t
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
> Sent: 11. april 2008 09:50
>
> ...
> The question is: why not apply it to classes, too?
>
> By the way, I was wrong about the grammar allowing
>
> var public::count = ...
>
> in
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
>
> > Sent: 11. april 2008 09:26
> > To: Lars Hansen
>
> > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org; liorean
> > Subject
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
> Sent: 11. april 2008 09:26
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org; liorean
> Subject: Re: Strict mode recap
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Lars Hansen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Right, I get that, and Brendan's point was a good one. I was
> > just thrown by the fact that I hadn't seen an example of
> >
> > class A {
> > var public::count = 10;
> > }
> >
> > rather than
> >
> > class
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
> Sent: 11. april 2008 05:20
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: liorean; es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: Strict mode recap
>
> > Apart from that there's no problem. "var" is used to indicate
On 4/11/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 4/10/08, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > var o = { null var count = 100, ... };
> >
> > Sorry: two syntactic mistakes, here, one of which is interesting.
> > The boring one is my use of '=' rather than ':'.
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
