Hello,
I'd like to clarify the question about approach used in ECMA-262-5
regarding the code design for new methods of Object constructor.
I've read the section Attribute Control API Design and Rationale of
Proposed ECMAScript 3.1 Static Object Functions: Use Cases and
Rationale document:
On 16 April 2010 13:13, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that approach used in ECMA-262-5 for new object methods contradicts
ES nature.
+1
The new API seems quite random. I hope that JavaScript is not turning into PHP.
-dean
On Apr 16, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Dean Edwards wrote:
On 16 April 2010 13:13, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that approach used in ECMA-262-5 for new object methods
contradicts ES nature.
+1
The new API seems quite random. I hope that JavaScript is not
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Dean Edwards dean.edwa...@gmail.comwrote:
On 16 April 2010 13:13, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that approach used in ECMA-262-5 for new object methods
contradicts ES nature.
+1
The new API seems quite random. I hope that
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
By the way, it is also petty that there's no ability to change prototype
and there is only get function for that; __proto__ extension in this
case was better.
Especially when I want to change only [[Prototype]] and keep values of
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
And I have a question. Why ES5 give control on values of internal
attributes? What will improve that? Save augmentation of built-in?
Good design of JS
On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Dean Edwards
dean.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 April 2010 13:13, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that approach used in ECMA-262-5 for new object methods
contradicts ES
On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
By the way, it is also petty that there's no ability to change
prototype
and there is only get function for that; __proto__ extension in
this
case was better.
Especially when I
On Apr 16, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
2. Extending the language's syntax with:
(a) No versioning required in the absence of new reserved
identifiers, since new syntax cannot break existing content.
Of course I glossed over how new syntax *could* make invalid content
start
On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
By the way, it is also petty that there's no ability to change
prototype
and there is only get function for that; __proto__ extension in
this
case was better.
Especially when I
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 08:43, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
ES4 since Waldemar's 1998-era JS2 work was concerned with the problem of
versioning APIs implied by (1) greatly, and not just adding properties:
deleting and redefining too. ES4 proposed namespaces (like Common Lisp
On Apr 16, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 08:43, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
ES4 since Waldemar's 1998-era JS2 work was concerned with the
problem of versioning APIs implied by (1) greatly, and not just
adding properties: deleting and
On Apr 16, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
However, ES5 *does* allow libraries to bind non-enumerable
properties of prototype objects. This is half of the solution, and
if the prototype in question is Object.prototype, or perhaps even
Oops, missing not: ... if the prototype in
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:06, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
By the way, it is also petty that there's no ability to change prototype
and there is only get function for
On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:06, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
... settable __proto__, apart from the object initialiser use case
(i.e., on a new object not yet reachable, analogous to ES5's
Object.create), is a terrible idea.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:28, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Object.create is the standardized form of Crock's beget. It's not bad for
an API, albeit longer than b-e-g-e-t (but also less likely to collide,
although collide it did with TIBET's create method on Object).
My main
On 2010-04-16, at 13:07, Brendan Eich wrote:
Another Harmony idea: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names
for unforgeable property names not equated to any string. These cannot
collide, and with sugar to let them be used with . (not only in computed
property accesses using
Name sounds like a stripped-down uninterned symbol (http://bit.ly/bY3Jkg) to
me.
Yup.
It's an object with a magic attribute that says, unlike any other object you
might try to use it as a property name, it is not coerced into a string
first. And it is compared by identity when looked
On 16/04/2010 14:48, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Dean Edwards wrote:
On 16 April 2010 13:13, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that approach used in ECMA-262-5 for new object methods
contradicts ES nature.
+1
The new API seems quite random.
2010/4/16, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
Special thanks for your response!
Especially when I want to change only [[Prototype]] and keep values of
other internal properties and methods for that object.
I write this having designed and
On 2010-04-16, at 14:31, David Herman wrote:
Tucker: if the property-nameness attribute weren't transferrable but names
were objects with property tables, do you think that would be powerful
enough? Or would you want the ability to define custom constructors, e.g.:
function
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:48 PM, P T Withington p...@pobox.com wrote:
On 2010-04-16, at 14:31, David Herman wrote:
Tucker: if the property-nameness attribute weren't transferrable but
names were objects with property tables, do you think that would be powerful
enough? Or would you want the
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:06, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
2010/4/16, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
By the way, it is also
Hello David,
Friday, April 16, 2010, 10:31:07 PM, you wrote:
Name sounds like a stripped-down uninterned symbol (http://bit.ly/bY3Jkg) to
me.
Yup.
It's an object with a magic attribute that says, unlike any other object you
might try to use it as a property name, it is not coerced into
24 matches
Mail list logo
