Hello,
How likely (based on backward compats) that Harmony will support
Pythonic negative indices for arrays? Ruby supports them too. There was
previous indirect mention, were Brendan agreed that Harmony needs such a
semantics for arrays, however, that discussion wasn't formed to
something
On 11.11.2010 13:24, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
There was previous indirect mention, were Brendan agreed that Harmony
needs such a semantics for arrays
Sorry, forgot the link
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2010-May/05.html
On 11.11.2010 13:24, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Toughs?
Funny typo :D Sorry.
Thoughts?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Actually, I'm still not sure myself whether I want this semantics in JS
for arrays. I remember one case (some simple math task) when I was
needed a[-1] and was glad that JS supports it -- I used `for (var i =
-2; i 10; i++) a[i]`, and it was very elegant decision at that moment.
There is
On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
OTOH, negative indices, are even not array indices. I.e.
var a = [1,2];
a[-1] = 0;
print(a); // 1,2
print(a.length); // 2
From this viewpoint -- for what are they? Seems again, `-n` notations for
arrays and strings is useful as
On 11 Nov 2010, at 19:30, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
OTOH, negative indices, are even not array indices. I.e.
var a = [1,2];
a[-1] = 0;
print(a); // 1,2
print(a.length); // 2
From this viewpoint -- for what are they? Seems again, `-n` notations for
arrays and strings is useful as a
On 11.11.2010 22:39, Ash Berlin wrote:
On 11 Nov 2010, at 19:30, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
OTOH, negative indices, are even not array indices. I.e.
var a = [1,2];
a[-1] = 0;
print(a); // 1,2
print(a.length); // 2
From this viewpoint -- for what are they? Seems again, `-n` notations for
On 11.11.2010 22:39, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
OTOH, negative indices, are even not array indices. I.e.
var a = [1,2];
a[-1] = 0;
print(a); // 1,2
print(a.length); // 2
From this viewpoint -- for what are they? Seems again, `-n` notations
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On
Behalf Of Dmitry A. Soshnikov
...
Yes, I mentioned it myself several times (in articles and including several
topics in es-discuss). Yes, Python distinguish. Ruby too. But from your
position, ES already has some
On 12.11.2010 0:07, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On
Behalf Of Dmitry A. Soshnikov
...
Yes, I mentioned it myself several times (in articles and including several topics in
es-discuss). Yes, Python distinguish. Ruby too.
If harmony would introduce this syntax guarded under a new script type, there
would at least be no danger of breaking the web (existing scripts).
However, negative array indexes might cause confusion when doing so
implicitly. If you asume array indexes are just properties it'll be hard to
So, do I understand correctly that you are against this feature and don't
like it? (Just another question -- are you aware that it used in Python,
Ruby, Perl, Coffee, other langs?)
The fact that other languages have a feature is not relevant, the problem is
the drastic change to semantics
On 12.11.2010 0:42, Peter van der Zee wrote:
If harmony would introduce this syntax guarded under a new script type, there
would at least be no danger of breaking the web (existing scripts).
I don't think it means that using script type=harmony we may do
everything (i.e. completely different
On 12.11.2010 0:47, Oliver Hunt wrote:
So, do I understand correctly that you are against this feature and don't like
it? (Just another question -- are you aware that it used in Python, Ruby, Perl,
Coffee, other langs?)
The fact that other languages have a feature is not relevant, the problem
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry A. Soshnikov [mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com]
...
Yeah, it's possible to make this thing generic, though maybe also good only
for
arrays. Need to more discuss, think.
There isn't actually all that much difference between array instances and
-Original Message-
From: Peter van der Zee [mailto:e...@qfox.nl]
...
I guess I would like -n to map to length-n, but I'm not sure whether it's
worth the
cost described above. After all, it's just sugar.
Like Oliver also said. This isn't just sugar, it is a deep semantic change to
If harmony would introduce this syntax guarded under a new script type,
there
would at least be no danger of breaking the web (existing scripts).
That sounds like an interop nightmare -- you're talking about forking the Array
type between language versions. Keep in mind that non-Harmony and
I agree with Dave, Allen, and Oliver that we should not just change indexing
under Harmony script-type opt-in.
Note also that Python, at least, has a more elaborate system of slicing that
has evolved over the years. I added slice in the Netscape 4 era, which made it
into ES3 and has the
Hi,
In ECMAScript, function declarations are SourceElements, but not
Statements. This means that they can only occur at the top level, and
may not be nested inside a block.
However, browsers support function declarations as statements, and many
scripts on the web seem to make use of this
From the ES5 spec section 12 statement semantics:
NOTESeveral widely used implementations of ECMAScript are known to support
the use of FunctionDeclaration as a Statement. However there are significant
and irreconcilable variations among the implementations in the semantics
applied to such
Hi Brendan and Allen,
Thanks for the pointers.
So for Harmony, we are reclaiming function in block (must be a direct child of
a braced block) to bind a block-local name on block entry (so hoisting lives,
but only to top of block -- so you can't emulate with var f = function ...).
If we
I believe that would be interoperable as long as each such function is only
declared and used within a single block. Multiple declarations with the same
function name in separate blocks wouldn't be interoperable among all browsers.
Allen
-Original Message-
From: Michael Day
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
I believe that would be interoperable as long as each such function is only
declared and used within a single block. Multiple declarations with the
same function name in separate blocks wouldn't be
On 11/11/10, Michael Day mike...@yeslogic.com wrote:
Hi Brendan and Allen,
Thanks for the pointers.
So for Harmony, we are reclaiming function in block (must be a direct
child of a braced block) to bind a block-local name on block entry (so
hoisting lives, but only to top of block -- so you
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
On 11/11/10, Michael Day mike...@yeslogic.com wrote:
Hi Brendan and Allen,
Thanks for the pointers.
So for Harmony, we are reclaiming function in block (must be a direct
child of a braced block) to bind a
Hi,
Browsers seem to allow { and } to occur in regexps unescaped, if the
position does not conflict with their use as a quantifier. For example:
/foo|{bar}/
However, ES3 and ES5 forbid this, as PatternCharacter does not include {
or } or any of the other significant punctuation.
Given
26 matches
Mail list logo
