The definitions of the SetMutableBinding method for both declarative and
object environment records (10.2.1.1.3 and 10.2.1.2.2) refer to
"SetMutableValue" in their first sentence. This name doesn't occur
anywhere else; I assume they're supposed to be SetMutableBinding.
___
In Appendix C, "The Strict Mode of ECMAScript", the paragraph noting
that VariableDeclaration and VariableDeclarationIn may not assign to
eval in strict mode doesn't cite any particular section number;
shouldn't it cite 12.2.1?
___
es-discuss mailing
(forwarding for Travis since his direct post bounced)
From: Travis Leithead
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:28 AM
To: bren...@mozilla.com; Allen Wirfs-Brock; c...@mcc.id.au
Cc: es-discuss; Garrett Smith; Chris Wilson
Subject: Re: Array Like Interface
(Adding Cameron, the WebIDL editor)
>> Anyon
The last sentence of the first paragraph should end with "... the result
depends on the value of the S argument:".
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On May 18, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Neil Mix wrote:
Ah, but delete and typeof are different in that they both *require*
an argument (terminology be damned, hopefully you understand what I
mean by that.) And return is different because it can't be used in
an expression. See my previous let x = yi
On May 18, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Making them mandatory is the issue. You can derive whatever comfort
you want from 'em, but they are not required and we're not going to
start requiring them for return, delete, or typeof. So mandating
parentheses for yield is kind of wrong.
On May 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Neil Mix wrote:
But for this to be true, we would need to use the direct-eval
detection hack I mentioned previously.
On the plus side, this would allow for feature detection of
generator support, right? (Is there any other way to detect
generator support?)
2009/5/18 Brendan Eich :
>
> On May 18, 2009, at 2:25 AM, Igor Bukanov wrote:
>
>> The remedy for this is simple - the generator can be created using
>> explicit call like Generator(f, arg1, ... argN). This would turn any
>> function into a generator and would allow for runtime checks for eval.
>
>
Nothing prevents you from writing yield(E) of course -- but you're
arguing that foo(a = yield(b), c) should be enough, no extra parens
required -- no foo(a = (yield(b)), c). Right?
Yes that's correct.
Pros for yield(E):
- backward compatible
But for this to be true, we would need to use t
In section 10.2.1.1, "Declarative environment records", the first
paragraph has an extra comma before "and/or function declarations".
There are only two alternatives there, so no comma is necessary.
In section 10.2.1.2, "Object Environment Records", the second sentence
begins, "An environment
>-Original Message-
>From: Garrett Smith [mailto:dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com]
>
>Right. The problem is that that implied interface is not fulfilled in
>a compatible way IE. IE has list-like host objects which do not work
>with Array generics, even though those objects appear to support
>[[Get]]
On May 18, 2009, at 2:25 AM, Igor Bukanov wrote:
The remedy for this is simple - the generator can be created using
explicit call like Generator(f, arg1, ... argN). This would turn any
function into a generator and would allow for runtime checks for eval.
You mean yield, not eval, right?
T
On May 18, 2009, at 5:56 AM, P T Withington wrote:
On 2009-05-17, at 14:00EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
those painful and fruitless parentheses
Sometimes those parentheses are comforting, not painful. How many
times in JS do you see:
typeof(foo)
or in C.*
sizeof(boo)
Or even return(wa
On 2009-05-17, at 14:00EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
those painful and fruitless parentheses
Sometimes those parentheses are comforting, not painful. How many
times in JS do you see:
typeof(foo)
or in C.*
sizeof(boo)
___
es-discuss mailing lis
2009/5/17 Brendan Eich :
> One of the appealing (at least to me)
> aspects of Neil's suggestion was that it would avoid opt-in versioning
> required by reserving yield (which is used in extant web content, or was
> when we tried reserving it without opt-in versioning -- the particular use
> was as
15 matches
Mail list logo
