Hello Jason,
thank you for your reply.
Because of the debug the asBits method should be the same as SameValue, is
this correct?
I've changed StrictlyEqual which is called by SameValue. I've thought this
is used as SameValue-Algorithm from the Spec.
Now I have to change all places with asBits com
Terrence Cole wrote:
Yes. I'd also hop on #jslang and talk to jorendorff and dherman about
your idea: try to find a champion for the feature on the spec committee
who can help with the language design aspects and drive the idea
forward. I, for one, love python's docstrings and have wanted to see
+1 for Esprima.
Any of you not following sweet.js, which uses Esprima, sweet.js is Tim
Disney at al. doing hygienic macros for JS. Infix operator macros just
came in via a github contributor. It is among other things a validation
of sorts, or at least a testimonial, for Esprima.
/be
Bill Mc
- Original Message -
> From: "Gregory Szorc"
> To: "Jeff Walden" ,
> dev-tech-js-engine-internals@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:20:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [JS-internals] Improvements to the Sphinx in-tree documentation
> generation
>
> Thanks for the info Jeff. I'
On 12/17/2013 04:20 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On 12/17/13, 3:57 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
>> Python exposes docstrings because they're not really comments --
>> they're first-class syntax in the language (overloaded syntax, but
>> still part of the language definition). Go also includes them as part
On 12/17/13, 10:11 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Is anyone looking at implementing O.o?
Object.observe() is tracked in bug 800355, but it's not assigned to anyone.
Google implemented Object.observe() in Chrome 25 (behind a pref).
chris
___
dev-tech-js-en
On 12/17/13, 3:57 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
Python exposes docstrings because they're not really comments -- they're
first-class syntax in the language (overloaded syntax, but still part of the
language definition). Go also includes them as part of the language, assuming
I understand your descri
Python exposes docstrings because they're not really comments -- they're
first-class syntax in the language (overloaded syntax, but still part of the
language definition). Go also includes them as part of the language, assuming
I understand your description of its setup. Same for Rust, or at l
On 12/17/13 5:51 AM, Andreas Schlegel wrote:
> The problem is, that in the HashableValue::operator==() function the
> Context cx was given as nullptr to SameValue():
> JS_ASSERT(SameValue(nullptr, value, other.value, &same));
You can just delete that assertion. But you'll also have to look out for
Moving from dev-platform to dev-tech-js-engine-internals. Previous
conversation at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/Ha7HXLbnGGc/dAlP6RbfsrQJ
On 12/17/13, 1:57 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 12/16/2013 03:09 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Perhaps Reflect.parse() could grow a new optio
On 12/16/2013 07:51 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> These bugs were completed (resolved fixed) in Firefox 28:
>
> [DONE] 903332 - document.watch() Proxies
I would not mention/tout this. We don't want people using watch. Telling them
it "works" again in particular cases will only incent further usa
Not a straight trade, but any deprecation and later obsolescence cycle
for these will cause pressure to rise for Object.observe.
Is anyone looking at implementing O.o?
/be
Chris Peterson wrote:
[PROPOSED] 934669 - Warn on Object.prototype.{,un}watch()
Hello,
is this perhaps a bug or failure:
JS_ASSERT(SameValue(nullptr, value, other.value, &same));
How can I retrieve the JSContext for declaring RootedObjects, if the
parent function is called with a nullptr as value for JSContext?
Thanks
Andreas
Am 17.12.2013 12:51, schrieb Andreas Schlegel:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:03 PM, David Bruant wrote:
>
> There is a bug on this topic
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=813530
>
> David
>
Ah, nice. Thanks for the link!
___
dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list
dev-tech-js-engine-inter
Le 17/12/2013 16:36, Till Schneidereit a écrit :
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Andrew McCreight wrote:
Of course, these kinds of cache references would need to be different than
other weak references, at both the language level (if you want regular weak
references, then these cachey referenc
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> On 12/17/13 8:37 AM, Till Schneidereit wrote:
> > Here's another use case for weak references that I don't think has been
> > mentioned yet:
> >
> > Caching of expensive-to-recreate data.
>
> If you actually did this, you would soon want so
On 12/17/13 8:37 AM, Till Schneidereit wrote:
> Here's another use case for weak references that I don't think has been
> mentioned yet:
>
> Caching of expensive-to-recreate data.
If you actually did this, you would soon want some control over the
cache: the ability to retain recently used entries
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Andrew McCreight wrote:
> Of course, these kinds of cache references would need to be different than
> other weak references, at both the language level (if you want regular weak
> references, then these cachey references are a kind of short-term leak) and
> implem
Of course, these kinds of cache references would need to be different than
other weak references, at both the language level (if you want regular weak
references, then these cachey references are a kind of short-term leak) and
implementation level (you may want to allocate this kind of data in a
Here's another use case for weak references that I don't think has been
mentioned yet:
Caching of expensive-to-recreate data. When working on frontend projects, I
quite frequently found myself in a situation where I had some data that I
could recreate, but where doing so would be at least moderate
Hello Jason,
the program exits in the RootingApi.h line 644 with a Segmentation Fault.
641#ifdef JSGC_TRACK_EXACT_ROOTS
642js::ThingRootKind kind = js::GCMethods::kind();
643this->stack = &cx->thingGCRooters[kind];
*644this->prev = *stack;*
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Below are lists of some of the "big ticket" JS features and bugs that
> people said they planned to work on for Firefox 28 and 29.
>
> * Firefox 28: Are any noteworthy items missing from the Firefox 28 list?
>
> * Firefox 28: Of the proposed
22 matches
Mail list logo
