Re: new ECMA262 5.1 engine

2011-10-20 Thread Yusuke Suzuki
I got reply from Mr. Fugate, used test262 commad-line runner for lv5, got some bugs in engine (JSON quote process and RegExp escape had a bug. now fixed). Thanks for this great test suite! Now, some test262 test cases are failed, but these failures have reasons. First I found test262 bugs. So I h

Re: decoupling [ ] and property access for collections

2011-10-20 Thread David Herman
> [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:dicts [D.H. already > mentioned that this proposal does not reflect his current thinking, so beware] FWIW, I don't really know what my current thinking is. :) Dave ___ es-discuss mailing list es-di

Re: yield and Promises

2011-10-20 Thread Brendan Eich
On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Jorge wrote: >>> assert_invariants(); >>> f(); //might suspend execution >>> assert_invariants(); // perhaps yes, perhaps no. There's no guarantee >>> either. >>> return; (Please trim cited text -- I know gmail hides it, which is a bug, but most mail user agents sh

Re: yield and Promises

2011-10-20 Thread Jorge
On 20/10/2011, at 18:38, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:44 AM, Jorge wrote: >> On 19/10/2011, at 23:34, Brendan Eich wrote: >>> >>> The other objection is that (ignoring some evil native APIs such as sync >>> XHR) JS has run-to-completion execution model now. You can model >>> >>> a

Re: new ECMA262 5.1 engine

2011-10-20 Thread Juriy Zaytsev
How does it fair on test262? http://test262.ecmascript.org/ -- kangax On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM, Yusuke Suzuki wrote: > Hello. > > I wrote new ECMA262 5.1 full support engine "iv / lv5" in C++. > This is highly inspired from JSC, V8 and SpiderMonkey. (especially JSC) > > https://github.co

Re: Why isn't FunctionExpression a PrimaryExpression?

2011-10-20 Thread Brendan Eich
On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > (Mh, actually, could we > even distinguish between function declerations and expression > statements starting with a function expr in LALR(1), without heavy > grammar transformation?) To answer this question, there's no way to disambiguate

Re: yield and Promises

2011-10-20 Thread Brendan Eich
On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:44 AM, Jorge wrote: > On 19/10/2011, at 23:34, Brendan Eich wrote: >> >> The other objection is that (ignoring some evil native APIs such as sync >> XHR) JS has run-to-completion execution model now. You can model >> >> assert_invariants(); >> f(); >> assert_invariants_not

Re: Why isn't FunctionExpression a PrimaryExpression?

2011-10-20 Thread Brendan Eich
On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > One concern might be that we probably cannot make arrow notation (if > we introduce it) a primary expression, and it might be confusing if > they have different precedence. We absolutely cannot and the strawman specifies the grammar fully:

Re: yield and Promises

2011-10-20 Thread Dean Landolt
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Jorge wrote: > On 19/10/2011, at 23:34, Brendan Eich wrote: > > > > The other objection is that (ignoring some evil native APIs such as sync > XHR) JS has run-to-completion execution model now. You can model > > > > assert_invariants(); > > f(); > > assert_inva

Re: yield and Promises

2011-10-20 Thread Jorge
On 19/10/2011, at 23:34, Brendan Eich wrote: > > The other objection is that (ignoring some evil native APIs such as sync XHR) > JS has run-to-completion execution model now. You can model > > assert_invariants(); > f(); > assert_invariants_not_affected_by_f_etc(); > > where "etc" means func

Re: Why isn't FunctionExpression a PrimaryExpression?

2011-10-20 Thread Andreas Rossberg
One concern might be that we probably cannot make arrow notation (if we introduce it) a primary expression, and it might be confusing if they have different precedence. I also think it is easier to parse for the human reader when he sees (function f() { ... })() instead of function f() { ..