On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
Object.extend is the only method I shim on every es5 project, so +1
However arguments like library X is would break are stupid, remember es6 is
an opt-in so backwards compat with existing code be damned.
No U! My concern
I think you just documented this:
http://www.yafla.com/dforbes/String_Concatenation_and_Immutable_Strings_Speeding_Spidermonkey/
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Wes Garland w...@page.ca wrote:
On 6 October 2011 14:09, Tom Schuster t...@schuster.me wrote:
(1) is in fact really good optimized
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
But, some of them simply double the semantics and syntax in the language
without a path to deprecate previous syntax. I'm a big fan of let, but if
you don't deprecate
On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
But, some of them simply double the semantics and syntax in the language
without a path
2011/10/7 John-David Dalton john.david.dal...@gmail.com
As for the functionality, it should just be an n-ary function which
extends
the first object with all the _own_ properties of the other n-1 objects.
If
keys clash give right precedence.
I've used this flavor of extends too (minus
Fixed, thanks.
Dave, digging his way out of a massive backlog...
On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:string_extras
I’ve found a small bug:
String.prototype.endsWith = function(s) {
var t = String(s);
return
On this particular issue, I'm inclined to agree -- I think we should be
extremely sparing with how many new sigils, if any, we introduce into the
language. You'll notice Brendan has repeatedly said similar things about | and
.{ for example. Syntax matters.
But I feel like now might be a good
Several people advocate Object.extend() that copies only own properties. I
don't understand why; I'll make the case for copying all properties.
At a call site I use, say
foo.bar();
Ordinarily I should not be concerned about details of bar()'s
implementation. In particular I should not be
Hi Andreas,
- Proxy.create: What if the handler passed is not an object? Should we
throw right away?
We think the most sensible thing to do is to call ToObject(handler), which
will throw right away if the handler is not an object.
- Proxy.create: What if the prototype passed is neither an
I mostly have a similar approach in mind for tail calls. Precise about the
interface, imprecise/informative about the implementation requirements. For
WeakMaps, that means a well-defined API with informal English describing the
expectations about memory consumption. For tail calls, it means a
From: David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
Subject: Re: Grawlix
Date: October 7, 2011 15:54:58 GMT+02:00
To: John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
Cc: Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com, es-discuss@mozilla.org
On this particular issue, I'm inclined to agree -- I think we should be
From: John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
Subject: Re: Object.extends (was Re: traits feedback)
Date: October 7, 2011 16:49:50 GMT+02:00
To: Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.com
Cc: John-David Dalton john.david.dal...@gmail.com, es-discuss Steen
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Several people
I don't think we can get away with repurposing _ as a pattern sigil, since it's
already a valid identifier and used by popular libraries:
http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/
In my strawman for pattern matching, I used * as the don't-care pattern:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
*From: *John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
*Subject: **Re: Object.extends (was Re: traits feedback)*
*Date: *October 7, 2011 16:49:50 GMT+02:00
*To: *Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.com
*Cc: *John-David Dalton
2011/10/7 John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
If you do something like
var fuz = Object.extend(foo, {paper:'in', shoes:'my'});
Then fuz will get all properties of Object.prototype, again, as
duplicates.
If you do something like
var fuz = Object.extend(foo, {paper:'in', shoes:'my'});
Then fuz will get all properties of Object.prototype, again, as duplicates.
In the above, you are clearly most interested in what you see in the literal
and those are the own properties.
I don't
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
If you do something like
var fuz = Object.extend(foo, {paper:'in', shoes:'my'});
Then fuz will get all properties of Object.prototype, again, as
duplicates. In the above, you are clearly most interested in what you
Sorry to be dense, but I still don't get it. How can an object have duplicate
properties? I understand that own properties override properties on
prototypes.
When you look at the object literal
var source = { foo: 123 };
then you have e.g.
toString in source === true
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/7 John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.dewrote:
If you do something like
var fuz = Object.extend(foo, {paper:'in', shoes:'my'});
Again I'll ask you to consider that fuz.bar() should work. That is what
extend means. How can we solve this?
It’s possible that you are actually looking for mixins:
http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/a-fresh-look-at-javascript-mixins/
One possible solution is to do 2 extends:
2011/10/7 John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/10/7 John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.dewrote:
If you do something like
var
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Sorry to be dense, but I still don't get it. How can an object have
duplicate properties? I understand that own properties override properties
on prototypes.
When you look at the object literal
var source = {
The object |obj| has a property |foo|; the object |proto| has a property
|foo|. The string foo appears as property names in two different objects.
I don't understand what problem this will cause for developers. The object
|obj| does not have duplicate properties, it has a unique value for
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
Subject: Re: Grawlix
Date: October 7, 2011 19:56:23 GMT+02:00
To: Quildreen Motta quildr...@gmail.com, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
For example, we were looking for a more concise way to express
(I'm starting a little late on a long thread so sorry if I repeat things that
have already been said.
On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:50 AM, John-David Dalton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
Object.extend is the only method I shim on every es5 project, so
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I don’t see a simple way of “fixing” (property descriptors do have their
uses) Object.create().
Just allow the second argument to be property descriptor *or* object.
Problem: property descriptors are
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I mostly have a similar approach in mind for tail calls. Precise about the
interface, imprecise/informative about the implementation requirements. For
WeakMaps, that means a well-defined API with informal English
On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I would prefer the name Object.copyOwnPropertiesTo(source, target) or
Object.copyOwnTo(source, target) to the name “extend” (which, to me, suggests
On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
...
I would prefer the name Object.copyOwnPropertiesTo(source, target) or
Object.copyOwnTo(source, target) to the name “extend” (which, to me,
suggests inheritance).
I isn't clear from the attribution who said the following. It
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
...
I would prefer the name Object.copyOwnPropertiesTo(source, target) or
Object.copyOwnTo(source, target) to the name “extend” (which, to me,
suggests
On 7 October 2011 17:47, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I don't think we can get away with repurposing _ as a pattern sigil, since
it's already a valid identifier and used by popular libraries:
http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/
In my strawman for pattern matching, I
31 matches
Mail list logo
