Le 15/03/2011 04:24, David Herman a écrit :
[Oh sorry, I'm behind on the iteration-order mega-thread. I'll have to
catch up.]
Summury of how the iteration thread may affect this proposal:
If the iteration-order thread ends up to the conclusion that for objects
({}-like objects, not arrays or
Le 15/03/2011 00:52, David Bruant a écrit :
Hi,
I've been thinking about Function proxy use cases lately. Things that
the spec do and that could be convenient to emulate as well or just
things that could be useful.
* [[Construct]]-less functions.
All Array.prototype methods are like that as
On 3/14/2011 10:08 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 14, 2011, at 11:50 PM, John J. Barton wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
However, there's no way for a generator function to return that instance,
because a generator function always implicitly returns a fresh generator
iterator when
On 15.03.2011 17:58, John J. Barton wrote:
On 3/14/2011 10:08 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 14, 2011, at 11:50 PM, John J. Barton wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
However, there's no way for a generator function to return that
instance, because a generator function always implicitly
I think there is something deeper lurking behind this issue. Proxies can be
used to define objects whose property semantics can be quite different from
those of native objects. In some situations the built-in Object. reflection
functions are not going to be flexible enough to reify a mirror
P.S.:
A small change, e.g. can be to make next as a getter since it doesn't accept
arguments.
g.next; // 1
g.next; // 2
But, it's a cosmetic and actually not so needed change.
-1
The purpose of the next interface is to change the state of the iterator. A
getter interface obscures
Moreover, forgot to mention. Passing the generator function
(g-function and g-object for shortness) as an argument for the
`Generator` constructor is not good for dynamically bound `this` value
(notice, that in Python's `self` is just a casual variable/argument,
which should be passed manually
On 11:59 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Moreover, forgot to mention. Passing the generator function
(g-function and g-object for shortness) as an argument for the
`Generator` constructor is not good for dynamically bound `this` value
(notice, that in Python's `self` is just a casual
On 11:59 AM, David Herman wrote:
P.S.:
A small change, e.g. can be to make next as a getter since it doesn't accept
arguments.
g.next; // 1
g.next; // 2
But, it's a cosmetic and actually not so needed change.
-1
The purpose of the next interface is to change the state of the iterator. A
Le 15/03/2011 18:07, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
I think there is something deeper lurking behind this issue. Proxies can be
used to define objects whose property semantics can be quite different from
those of native objects. In some situations the built-in Object. reflection
functions are
This seems like an issue for the next major edition rather than a correctable
error for ES5/5.1.
However, feel free to submit a bug at bugs.ecmascript.org. That will capture
the issue so it can be address in a future edition.
Allen
'
On Mar 12, 2011, at 2:45 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
Hi all, before saying anything about the most recent update, I'd just like to
say thanks to everyone whose reported bugs on defective test cases thus far.
Your valuable feedback truly does help make test262 an accurate conformance
suite for ECMAScript 5! Please keep the bug reports coming.
One more question about the future of classes on Harmony.
Although the meta: property syntax is very clear, I'm wondering if it
isn't better to be less innovative and stick to what ES4/Java/etc have been
doing for a long time. Wouldn't something like this ease the learning curve
of the new
On 15.03.2011 21:13, John J. Barton wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Moreover, forgot to mention. Passing the generator function
(g-function and g-object for shortness) as an argument for the
`Generator` constructor is not good for dynamically bound `this`
value (notice, that in
Sorry, this is both foolish consistency and a boilerplate tax on users. Worse,
it removes a special form (syntax dedicated to a new primitive) that
implementations need to parse, in order to compile and optimize the function
using the primitive. We are not going to add a Generator constructor.
The starting point for the class initialiser proposal are the Object
Initialiser Extensions. I wanted to add the option to specify the prototype
for ObjectLiteral and ArrayLiteral but because they aren't prefixed by a
keyword, the extends like syntax doesn't work for them. The proto: foo
Absolutely not! I read the word meme and I panicked! Please understand
that I'm trying to write about highly technical topics in a foreign language
(I'm from Argentina), so sometimes my word choice may not be the best.
I used classes mostly because it's what most of JS developers I know use
today
I put together a playground so you can interactively experiment with
the quasi strawman syntax while I update the draft spec.
Take a look at
http://js-quasis-libraries-and-repl.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/index.html
It's a REPL derived from the squarefree shell which desugars the input
before
Hi,
On the proxy proposal is an open issue. It starts with How to deal with
inconsistent data returned by handler traps? (actually, the issue also
applies to inputs since I can provide garbage as Object.defineProperty
arguments). First of all, I think that there might be a false assumption
in the
19 matches
Mail list logo
