On 12.04.2011 20:41, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to share my experience on a recent experiment. First off, I'd
like to apologize for the name; declarative object doesn't really
capture it and may be confusing. Second of all, what I have created
doesn't really solve any use case (I'll
Le 12/04/2011 18:41, David Bruant a écrit :
Hi,
I'd like to share my experience on a recent experiment. First off, I'd
like to apologize for the name; declarative object doesn't really
capture it and may be confusing. Second of all, what I have created
doesn't really solve any use case (I'll
On 13.04.2011 12:08, David Bruant wrote:
Le 13/04/2011 09:02, Dmitry A. Soshnikov a écrit :
On 12.04.2011 20:41, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to share my experience on a recent experiment. First off,
I'd like to apologize for the name; declarative object doesn't
really capture it and
Le 13/04/2011 10:18, Dmitry A. Soshnikov a écrit :
On 13.04.2011 12:08, David Bruant wrote:
Le 13/04/2011 09:02, Dmitry A. Soshnikov a écrit :
Yes, the pattern is interesting, though, really, which practical
use-case will it have?
I warned from the beginning that I didn't see any :-p
More
The behavior of References isn't as arbitrary or different from
other languages as it might seem. It's really a way to specify
l-values.
Not arbitrary, but different, and quite drastically so (as far as
usage is concerned). Your remarks helped me to pin down the
difference (and eliminated two
Like most Javascript programmers, I have tended to follow
a simple rule for functions using 'this': eta-expand method
selections, use .bind, or get into trouble.
That is unnecessary, inefficient, and adds clutter.
The problem with rules-of-thumb is that most people only
have two of those;-) I
finding relevant information on the wiki isn't straightforward
for newcomers.
Good point, operators in particular need some navigational
help. I'll do something about it.
Thanks. Btw, other things I've been looking for are timeline,
process, committee information, and software information
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:30:58 +0200, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
It has recently been brought to my attention that a particular use case
of JSON serialisation is to include JSON serialised content directly
into an HTML file (inside a script tag). In this case in addition to
the
Hi,
(I separate it from recent thread on shared handlers for proxies).
The existential operator is a syntactic sugar to avoid long testing
whether a property exists and only after that to apply it. This already
is again used in CoffeeScript, so I'll show the examples:
let street =
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator -- the
proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an expression
due to conditional expressions (?:).
On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
let street = user.address?.street
which
Many JSON serializer implementations escape the / character, including for
instance PHP's json_encode(). However, JavaScript's own JSON.stringify()
does not. If you look at the grammar on json.org, as I read it, the escaping
of / is **optional**, since it is a valid UNICODE character, and it's
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator --
the proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an
expression due to conditional expressions (?:).
The default operator doesn't address a significant part of what Dmitry is
asking for -- the . in the
Hi,
When the uniform proxy API [1] was being explored, was it ever
considered to just cache the call and construct traps within the
proxy during the Proxy.create() call rather than look them up each
time the proxy is called as a function or constructor? That seems to
solve most if not all of the
On 4/13/11, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote:
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator --
the proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an
expression due to conditional expressions (?:).
The default operator doesn't address a significant
The other (more awkward/obscure looking) way to do this is:
var a;
b a = c;
a = b c;
That is not the same thing. Your code assigns `b` to `a` if `b` is falsy .
The other code either leaves `a` as undefined (strictly doesn't assign) if
the test fails, or assigns it the value of `c` (no
On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator -- the
proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an expression
due to conditional expressions (?:).
The default operator doesn't address a
On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
Your suggestion to change the ternary operator is interesting but
creates incompatibility. It is not feasible.
I'm curious what incompatibility you mean? If we're talking about backwards
compatibility... of course. But a lot of the
On 13.04.2011 16:57, Brendan Eich wrote:
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator -- the
proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an expression
due to conditional expressions (?:).
On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
let
On 13.04.2011 17:38, Kyle Simpson wrote:
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator
-- the proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous
after an expression due to conditional expressions (?:).
The default operator doesn't address a significant part of
On 13.04.2011 21:57, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator -- the
proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an expression
due to conditional expressions (?:).
The
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
var a = b ? c; // aka, `var a = b ? c : undefined`
Hm, intuitively the form `a = b ? c` sounds for me as:
a = b ? b : c
Which would be
a = b || c;
or if you want to test exactly b === undefined,
a = b ?? c;
but this
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
(regardless that ES6 will have compile-time bindings, it still possible to
create global var at runtime via `this.bar`, though, if there will be no
global object, I'm not sure how this applies to the ES6)
No, Harmony won't alias this
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
is too noisy in contrast with:
foo.bar?.baz?quax(value);
and first of all, this syntactic sugar is proposed exactly this such cases.
Did you leave out a . after the second . in that example?
Er, after the second ? in that example?
/be
2011/4/12 Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com:
It has recently been brought to my attention that a particular use case of
JSON serialisation is to include JSON serialised content directly into an
HTML file (inside a script tag). In this case in addition to the threat of
strings being terminated
I declare this whole no-space-suffix idea a bad path and renounce it.
Again, CoffeeScript is its own (informally specified) language (Jeremy is
awesome). However: we should learn from it but not blindly copy from it.
/be
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Bob Nystrom wrote:
OTOH, if ? as an
On 13.04.2011 22:25, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
(regardless that ES6 will have compile-time bindings, it still possible to
create global var at runtime via `this.bar`, though, if there will be no global
object, I'm not sure how this applies to
It'll be the WindowProxy as usual, in top level code. Dave has addressed
what it will be in a module recently.
I have to look on Dave's explanation, seems I missed it. But this WindowProxy
won't be assessable then, right? Will it be possible to define a new global
property/variable at
See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator --
the proposal there is ?? and ??= since single ? is ambiguous after an
expression due to conditional expressions (?:).
The default operator doesn't address a significant part of what Dmitry
is asking for -- the . in the
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
I had dinner with Jeremy Ashkenas last month, and he testified that
CoffeeScript's disamgibuator pass (between lexing and parsing) is a work in
progress and a work of (literately programmed) random logic, which he has
tweaked based on
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
First, making : optional introduces a dangling-else ambiguity:
x = a ? b ? c : d;
This could be (x = a ? (b ? c : d)) or (x = a ? (b ? c) : d).
True, if-else already has this (traditional in C-based languages) ambiguity,
resolved by
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:06 PM, David Herman wrote:
It'll be the WindowProxy as usual, in top level code. Dave has addressed
what it will be in a module recently.
I have to look on Dave's explanation, seems I missed it. But this
WindowProxy won't be assessable then, right? Will it be
I'm not sure I see how this is really introducing an additional
ambiguity?
It is obviously introducing an ambiguity where none exists today. ?: is
indivisible, unlike if vs. if else.
I was referring to no additional visual ambiguity inside the ?: with respect
to operator precedence and how
Cool -- is this spec'ed yet?
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules#this
Dave
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:46 PM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
I'm not sure I see how this is really introducing an additional ambiguity?
It is obviously introducing an ambiguity where none exists today. ?: is
indivisible, unlike if vs. if else.
I was referring to no additional visual ambiguity
I don't think this feature is worth all this discussion or time, which is why I
haven't said very much. But I don't like the idea.
It *is* ambiguous, in the sense that if you wrote the grammar in the natural
way it would be an ambiguous grammar, so you have to rewrite the grammar in
such a way
One way to get truly shared proxy handlers would be to allow proxies
to have some internal instance state that gets passed to each trap,
just like objects have internal instance state ( [[Prototype]],
[[Class]], [[Extensible]] etc) that gets passed to their traps (
[[Get]], [[GetOwnProperty]],
In an LR(1) grammar, if vs. if-else or ? vs. ?: is a shift-reduce conflict
(to use yacc terms). It is an ambiguity. It can be disambiguated, but
please do not confuse disambiguation via shifting with no *real*
ambiguity.
My point is it IS disambiguated by the definition of operator
Brendan, you've asked for other coding examples where I use the pattern of
some variable being `undefined` or not to trigger different behavior (that
is, to use the variable or not). Here's two more:
1. I have a templating engine DSL (called HandlebarJS) I wrote (in JS),
which includes a
On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Kyle Simpson wrote:
It's also not obviously a good non-hard case to burn into the grammar.
What is non-hard about saying that, in the processing of any ?: expression,
if the ? is present but the : is not found where it is expected, then the :
is implied and
39 matches
Mail list logo
