2011/10/10 Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.comwrote:
The traits philosophy is that, when merging objects, you want to see name
clashes
Le 11/10/2011 05:48, Cameron McCormack a écrit :
On 24/09/11 8:35 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Regarding, WebIDL. It seems to me, that it just needs an extended
attribute to specifies which attributes are instance attributes
rather than prototype attributes.
I think it only makes sense to
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.frwrote:
It gives me an idea for a proxy library which would be to pass a custom
field in a data descriptor indicating the type. The proxy would enforce the
type under the hood and either coerce silently or throw if the type is
2011/10/11 Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.frwrote:
It gives me an idea for a proxy library which would be to pass a custom
field in a data descriptor indicating the type. The proxy would enforce the
type under the hood and
Hi! Is there anyone working on a Harmony transpiler besides Traceur? It'd
be really useful to have a transpiler that justs desugars (what's possible
to desugar) without using a library like Closure, the way CoffeeScript is
working nowadays.
Thanks,
Juan
Caja http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/ includes an ES5-to-ES3
translator which already includes an emulation of ES-next proxies and a
somewhat leaky emulation of WeakMaps. (Non-leaky WeakMaps cannot be
practically provided by emulation, but our's are less leaky than you'd
expect.)
On Tue,
On Oct 11, 2011, at 5:43 AM, David Bruant wrote:
It gives me an idea for a proxy library which would be to pass a custom field
in a data descriptor indicating the type. The proxy would enforce the type
under the hood and either coerce silently or throw if the type is incorrect.
The original
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo
dopazo.j...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi! Is there anyone working on a Harmony transpiler besides Traceur?
I'd like to understand why Traceur is not suitable. As far as I understand
it was written to study new directions in JS.
jjb
It'd be really
One of the reasons traceur is not suitable is that it's a product of google
and thus not neutral.
I've actually asked traceur whether they intent to become a full es harmony
compliant transpiler but there was no response.
And another reason would be that it currently implements some strawmans
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the reasons traceur is not suitable is that it's a product of google
and thus not neutral.
Traceur is not a product, I think that is pretty obvious. It's just a JS to
JS compiler written by some engineers very keen
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote:
We don't know what the standard will be so we need some why to try out
different features.
That's not how the committee has worked since 2008, and even before then
(pre-Harmony), with a split committee, we still had two groups working on
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:42 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo
dopazo.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi! Is there anyone working on a Harmony transpiler besides Traceur?
I'd like to understand why Traceur is not suitable.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote:
We don't know what the standard will be so we need some why to try out
different features.
That's not how the committee has worked since 2008, and even before then
On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:47 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote:
We don't know what the standard will be so we need some why to try out
different features.
That's not how the
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:47 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote:
We don't know what the standard will be
On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:40 PM, John J Barton wrote:
I have quite a lot of first hand experience in picking up where things left
off. No question it's hard, but you may get further by building on Traceur
rather than starting over.
It would be great to get Traceur active again and up to
Proxy.create{Function} is now present on
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies_semantics. Let us
know if you spot any further holes.
Cheers,
Tom
2011/10/7 Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com
Hi Andreas,
- Proxy.create: What if the handler passed is not an object? Should we
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:40 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:47 PM, John J Barton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.comwrote:
On Oct 11,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
*From: *Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com
*Subject: **new Object*
*Date: *October 11, 2011 20:53:58 GMT+02:00
*To: *es-discuss es-discuss@mozilla.org
is there any kind of proposal for syntax that is like:
[...]
var
There is a lot of abandon-ware in open source, ..
Too true. And, for JS tools, a development I've been watching with
increasing concern (development fragmentation coupled with
scarce developer resources leading to project starvation).
It is perhaps a necessary learning experience that new JS
As a detour from controversial language design issues, I was
wondering about opportunities to improve the ES spec usability:
- source availability: could the sources please be made available,
preferably in easily processed form, on github?
For draft standards, that would allow tracking
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I dont think having both new Object and new Function in the language
will cause any conflicts. It's the same as claiming that having both
declarative class and new Function would cause confusion.
I wouldn’t mind
From: Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com
Subject: JS tools (was: Harmony transpilers)
Date: October 11, 2011 21:53:58 GMT+02:00
To: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
There is a lot of abandon-ware in open source, ..
Too true. And, for JS tools, a
class literals look the same but literal declaration are a right pain for
any kind of meta programming. I can't take an existing object and turn it
into a class without using eval.
Can you elaborate?
Let's say I have object/class A and object/class B, I want a new class that
is the
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
*From: *Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com
*Subject: **JS tools (was: Harmony transpilers)*
*Date: *October 11, 2011 21:53:58 GMT+02:00
*To: *Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
*Cc: *es-discuss@mozilla.org
There is
Sorry for seeing this thread so late.
I am the maintainer of Traceur at the moment.
We do want Traceur to align with the ES6 draft and with Harmony
proposals. Any missmatch is a bug and both bug reports and patches are
welcome.
The reason a lot of the generated code depends on a runtime library
Yes the prototypes are still there. But that means im just using es3
constructs. Es:harmony class literals only offer declarative sugar.
I'm not proposing we change any of the existing Class.prototype.* code. I
just propose that rather then throwing an error on new Object we make it
work.
This
http://es5.github.com is a good resource/starting point
Rick
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.comwrote:
As a detour from controversial language design issues, I was
wondering about opportunities to improve the ES spec usability:
- source availability: could
I've implemented several harmony proposals in es.next by expanding the grammar
in pegjs
(https://github.com/dmajda/pegjs/blob/master/examples/javascript.pegjs). The
AST and generator is defined using es.next classes and modules. I was thinking
of converting the derived classes in the ast and
On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
is there any kind of proposal for syntax that is like :
var proto = {
method: function() { },
constructor: function(someValue) {
this.things = someValue
}
};
var o = new proto(someValue);
Object.getPrototype(o) === proto;
On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
Yes the prototypes are still there. But that means im just using es3
constructs. Es:harmony class literals only offer declarative sugar.
I'm not proposing we change any of the existing Class.prototype.* code. I
just propose that rather
Agreed. all of these can live side by side. There is no reason for new
Object to compete declarative classe s.
I merely caused confusion using the phrase prototypes as classes instead
of new Object.
as a side note whislt you mentioned .{ and | I would like to have
programmatic, non declaritive
I absolutely love it for its conceptual beauty, but the primary goal should be
to establish a single dominant way of doing inheritance in JavaScript.
One feature that doesn’t yet fit into my pure OO universe are factory
functions/methods (I used frequently used factory methods in Java):
1. They
Point.zero = function () {
return (new Point).{ x: 0, y: 0 };
}
why are factory methods special? they are just methods.
On Oct 11, 2011 11:26 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I absolutely love it for its conceptual beauty, but the primary goal should
be to establish a single
If they are just a different way of initializing, then I love Smalltalk’s
approach of separating instantiation and initialization. E.g.
new Point.zero()
would actually mean (note: in normal JS, I always write parens after a
new-invoked function, but here it works well)
(new Point).zero()
(new
As for expression.parse, any constructor or initializer is still a function
therefore it can return an object thats not this.
This would be a good usecase for overwriting the [[Prototype]] with a new
value.
I dont know what sugar or syntax other languages with factory methods
offer which makes
On Oct 11, 2011, at 18:29, Jake Verbaten wrote:
Point.zero = function () {
return (new Point).{ x: 0, y: 0 };
}
why are factory methods special? they are just methods.
I agree with things should be just methods, but this particular pattern
doesn't work for always-frozen types.
--
So basically your saying that the only function that can alter an object
before its frozen is the constructor, thats why we need multiple
constructors?
You'll have to subclass with another constructor or come up with syntax for
multiple constructors.
On Oct 11, 2011 11:46 PM, Kevin Reid
On Oct 11, 2011, at 18:51, Jake Verbaten wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011 11:46 PM, Kevin Reid kpr...@switchb.org wrote:
On Oct 11, 2011, at 18:29, Jake Verbaten wrote:
Point.zero = function () {
return (new Point)...
I agree with things should be just methods, but this particular pattern
doesn't work
On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Kevin Reid wrote:
Well, in JavaScript you can always Object.create(Point.prototype, ...).
In Java, for example, the ability to have multiple constructors can be very
convenient for that type of use case; but it always can be replaced with
factory methods
The ES6 specification has more complicated language constructs that require
more verbose specification language for many constructs. One of the techniques
I'm using is to have more semantic functions over grammar productions . The
readability of the specification seems to be quite sensitive to
I have some thoughts about how to use Narcissus as a basis for a compiler to
ES3 as well. It's obviously not necessary to do separately from Traceur, but it
might be interesting to experiment with alternative implementation strategies.
I haven't really done anything in earnest yet, including
Thanks for all the answers!
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
I was trying to encourage Jake and Juan to participate in taking it
forward.
I'd love to, but I'm afraid my interpreter-writing skills are somewhat null
if not undefined. I'm
There is a concept of expressiveness in programming languages that has to do
with the notion of whether a feature is just sugar. A lightweight feature is
one that can be described as a simple, local rewrite into some other feature.
For example, the proposed method shorthand syntax:
{ f(x)
44 matches
Mail list logo
