I don't think
JavaScript has ever been far from its prototype roots especially if
the programmer shifts to thinking about a prototype object instead of
thinking about a functions prototype property.
That is basically the point that the proposal tries to make. Have you taken a
look at the
I quite the current prototype model we have in ecma5. My only gripes would
be that `prototype` to too wordy, and `__proto__` needs to become standard.
If you replaced `prototype` with `::` or something everything would be
swell.
function Parent (name) {
this.name = name ||
What I’m asking for is the following (and I might not convince anyone, but just
consider the possibility):
If you are using a constructor function C only once, during construction and
otherwise always use C.prototype, wouldn’t it be better to focus on
C' = C.prototype
Then you would use
BTW: I like the :: proposal (Brendan will remind you that it’s already taken,
though...).
What you are in fact creating is the illusion that the class name refers to the
prototype (with PAC, the :: would turn into a dot).
On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:21 , Tim Smart wrote:
I quite the current
I believe there is some type confusion in the proxy proposal spec
wrt property descriptors and their reification into attributes
objects.
1. In a note on the def of [[DefineOwnProperty]] for proxies, the proposal says:
The Desc argument to this trap is a property descriptor object
validated by
On 1 July 2011 12:12, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
I believe there is some type confusion in the proxy proposal spec
wrt property descriptors and their reification into attributes
objects.
1. In a note on the def of [[DefineOwnProperty]] for proxies, the proposal
says:
The
I absolutely agree with Alex and have few other points:
1. Does this code looks familiar ?
function Foo(options) { }
Foo.prototype.do_foo_job = function() { ... }
function Bar(options) {
if (!(this instanceof Bar))
return this new Bar(options);
Foo.apply(this, arguments);
}
Sorry I did not intended to send email yet:
So here is my points:
1. Does this looks familiar (version with syntax highlighting
https://gist.github.com/1058534)
function Foo(options) { }
Foo.prototype.do_foo_job = function() { ... }
function Bar(options) {
if (!(this instanceof Bar))
Log-in at [1] and remove the option to send a monthly password remainder?
*Get password reminder email for this list?*
Once a month, you will get an email containing a password reminder for
every list at this host to which you are subscribed. You can turn this
off on a per-list basis by
That’s a good start, thanks. Still find it a bit scary that there’s no
encryption.
On Jul 1, 2011, at 16:07 , André Bargull wrote:
Log-in at [1] and remove the option to send a monthly password remainder?
Get password reminder email for this list?
Once a month, you will get an email
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.com wrote:
why do I have to create constructor function for all classes / subclasses ?
This could be handled by class literals by allowing for default
constructors. If one doesn't provide a constructor, the following one
could be
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.com
wrote:
why do I have to create constructor function for all classes / subclasses
?
This magic trades confusion for convenience. In any earlier
On Friday, 2011-07-01 at 16:38 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com
(mailto:seaneag...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.com
(mailto:rfo...@gmail.com) wrote:
why do I have to create
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
This could be handled by class literals by allowing for default
constructors. If one doesn't provide a constructor, the following one
could be provided:
constructor(... args) {
super(... args);
}
This one I object
On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Oops -- thanks. I will fix in a strawman that captures all of this.
Done:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_vs_object_literal
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
Ah, oh yes. I think I fail at mailing lists :3
2011/7/1 Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
Did you mean to send this to es-discuss?
Peter
On 2011-07-01, at 8:51 AM, Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, in my opinion, constructor functions add needless complexity on
Should this
ImportDeclaration(load) ::= import ImportBinding(load) (,
ImportBinding(load))* ;
ImportPath(load) ::= ImportSpecifierSet from ModuleExpression(load)
ImportSpecifierSet ::= *
| IdentifierName
| { (ImportSpecifier (, ImportSpecifier)*)? ,? }
Thanks-- missed one when manually doing s/ImportPath/ImportBinding/g. Fixed.
Thanks,
Dave
On Jul 1, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
Should this
ImportDeclaration(load) ::= import ImportBinding(load) (,
ImportBinding(load))* ;
ImportPath(load) ::= ImportSpecifierSet from
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Tim Smart wrote:
I quite the current prototype model we have in ecma5. My only gripes would be
that `prototype` to too wordy,
Do you use it that often?
and `__proto__` needs to become standard.
The | operator is the future there. __proto__ won't be standardized
On Jul 1, 2011, at 6:19 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
With focus on prototype this is so much simpler:
var Foo = Object.extend({
initialize: function(options) { ... },
do_foo_job: function() { ... }
})
With | and 'super' in functions, I think you are set. It's hard to add more.
What is
({
get
x()
{
return 42;
}
})
?
Could it match both as an object literal with a getter
({ get x() { return 42; } })
or as a block with 3 statements?
({ get; x(); { return 42; } })
2011/7/1 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com:
On Jun 30, 2011, at
On Jul 1, 2011 1:14 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Tim Smart wrote:
I quite the current prototype model we have in ecma5. My only gripes
would be that `prototype` to too wordy,
Do you use it that often?
15 years ago, writing an overwrought prototype
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change your
subscription settings, afaik, so the security in place seems proportionate.
Could report it upstream to the mailman team, I suppose.
Mike
On Jul 1, 2011 10:09 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
That’s a good start,
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change your
subscription settings, afaik, so the security in place seems proportionate.
Could report it upstream to the mailman team, I suppose.
Use it to do a better job of impersonating. Try it
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change your
subscription settings, afaik, so the security in place seems proportionate.
Could report it upstream to the
In our implementation we are using a generic object. It has some overhead, and
a specific internal descriptor object representation might be a bit faster,
but such magic objects that don't allow expando properties are usually pretty
surprising to programers. Most of the HTML5 DOM allows
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change your
subscription settings, afaik, so the security in place seems
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change
Hi Andreas,
Property descriptors as specific type is an internal construct of the
ES spec. Their definition in ES5 was used in the context of ES5 (with
normal objects, host objects but no proxies). The proxy API needed a way
to represent them. Objects sound like the natural construct to do so.
Hi,
I just wanted to put on es-discuss the concern raised by Mark Miller [1]
about mutable internal properties of Date.prototype and that it should
be fixed in the next version of ECMAScript.
David
[1] http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/issues/detail?id=1362
On Friday, 2011-07-01 at 19:31 , Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 6:19 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
With focus on prototype this is so much simpler:
var Foo = Object.extend({
initialize: function(options) { ... },
do_foo_job: function() { ... }
})
With | and 'super' in functions, I think you are set. It's hard to add more.
The main debate is about whether this is enough, or do classes as sugar
provide enough added value?
|, super and possibly some support for subclassing (to set up the constructor
property in subclasses etc.) would
On Jul 1, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
On Friday, 2011-07-01 at 16:38 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
With two expectations for the semantics of something that does not appear in
the code, and without a static or dynamic rejection to prevent progress of
the code written to the
On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Andreas Gal wrote:
In our implementation we are using a generic object. It has some overhead,
and a specific internal descriptor object representation might be a bit
faster, but such magic objects that don't allow expando properties are
usually pretty
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
On Friday, 2011-07-01 at 19:31 , Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 6:19 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
With focus on prototype this is so much simpler:
var Foo = Object.extend({
initialize: function(options) { ... },
2011/7/1 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Mike Samuel wrote:
What is
({
get
x()
{
return 42;
}
})
?
Could it match both as an object literal with a getter
({ get x() { return 42; } })
Only that.
or as a block with 3
Thanks David,
Yes, this is important. The way I noticed it is that the same issue came up
for the FF implementation of WeakMaps
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=656828. I will be proposing
the to-be-fixed Mozilla API to the committee to become the new WeakMap
proposal -- making it
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Andreas Gal wrote:
In our implementation we are using a generic object. It has some
overhead, and a specific internal descriptor object representation might
be a bit faster, but such magic
38 matches
Mail list logo
