Le 03/04/2011 02:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want to address.
Why? I mean, given the WebIDL and DOM changes.
Because people want it;
On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:29 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 03/04/2011 10:12, David Bruant a écrit :
Le 03/04/2011 02:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want
On 03.04.2011 3:33, David Herman wrote:
Hi James,
1) Files as modules do not need module wrapper
Just to confirm, if a JS file contains only a module definition, the
module X{} wrapper is not needed?
That's correct.
2) Set module export value
Is it
On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want to address.
Why? I mean, given the WebIDL and DOM changes.
Is multiple inheritance
[this has grown a bit long, because in addition to concrete
suggestions, it discusses the design problems leading up
to these suggestions and includes an extended example;
I hope that makes for an easier read overall, but you
might want to allocate a few minutes to read it in one go]
Summary:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 4:33 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
2) Set module export value
That said, we could consider adding functionality to make a module callable,
to address the use case you describe. Thanks for bringing this up.
Allowing a callable module
6 matches
Mail list logo
