2011/11/9 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
On Nov 9, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
- lots of methods on Array.prototype (map, forEach, filter, some, reduce,
reduceRight, reverse, splice, indexOf, lastIndexOf, every, shift, slice,
sort, unshift): the only way in which these
2011/11/9 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
[[Get]] seems to do nothing but redispatch to [[GetP]] so its definition
could be replaced with the body of [[GetP]].
[[Puit] does a redispatch to [[SetP]] followed by a mode based
conditional throw depending upon the result of the [[SetP]].
Clever (took me a moment to figure out what the comma operator does here...).
And makes sense: You would not want an invoker to have that kind of power.
If it wasn’t so negative for performance, I probably would apply curryThis() to
all of my methods:
var obj = {
method: function
On 10 November 2011 14:49, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
getX() is designed for a dynamic `this` (i.e. `this` is an instance of
InnerPoint). My proposal would allow an external party to switch to lexical
`this` (=== function Outer), simply by invoking it as a (non-method)
function.
Any suggestion for improvement is highly welcome. But it seems like we can’t do
better than a construct that declares statically, how its `this` should be
passed to it. The cool thing about block lambdas is that you do the right thing
without thinking about it. That’s why, if we got arrow
I wonder if it made a difference if `this`was always stored in an
environment (instead of an execution context). Then block lambdas could find
them via the scope chain.
If I understand you correctly, then yes, this is definitely possible
in principle, and in fact corresponds to the standard
On 10 November 2011 15:58, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I wonder if it made a difference if `this`was always stored in an
environment (instead of an execution context). Then block lambdas could find
them via the scope chain.
If I understand you correctly, then yes, this is
Note that the traitsjs library provides:
1) all the safety of the objects-as-closure pattern you show below (and
more because it takes care of the needed freezing).
2) still allows intuitive use of this to refer to the instance itself,
bound not lexically, but rather at object instantiation time.
Le 10/11/2011 12:28, David Bruant a écrit :
(...)
but i think [traps] should be a right balance between the internal and
external API.
Internal object API:
* getPropertyDescriptor(propName)
* setPropertyDescriptor(propName, desc) (more or less equivalent to the
current [[DefineOwnProperty]])
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
2011/11/9 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
[[Get]] seems to do nothing but redispatch to [[GetP]] so its definition
could be replaced with the body of [[GetP]].
[[Puit] does a redispatch to [[SetP]] followed by a mode based
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:26 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
Are you sure you want to kill [[HasProperty]] entirely? If we replace it by a
conditional [[Get]], wouldn't that mean that the expression |name in obj|
might unnecessarily trigger an accessor in obj?
Good point, I didn't think about
I wholeheartedly agree that mixin composition is superior to both
prototype and class-based inheritance. I'm not sure I entirely follow
your point regarding `this', though. (TBH, I'd prefer not having a
`this' keyword at all, because not being alpha-convertible, it doesn't
really compose with
2011/11/10 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
- Object.getProperty and Object.setProperty built-ins that call
[[GetProperty]] and [[SetProperty]]
Also, to fully reify property manipulation I think we also need to factor
[[Delete]]
On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:28 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 09/11/2011 12:17, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
2011/11/8 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
More generally, I think there should be a 1::1 correspondence between the
internal methods in listed in ES5 Table 8 and fundamental proxy
The only value prototype inheritance gives is the fact you can change the
prototype and changes are reflected.
If you do not want that feature then use mixins.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.comwrote:
I wholeheartedly agree that mixin composition is superior
I think the specification of [[Construct]] for function proxies may
not currently be doing what it is intended to do. If the proxy does
not have a construct trap, the method simply delegates to the
[[Construct]] method of the call trap. AFAICS, that has two
consequences:
1. The prototype is taken
On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
2011/11/10 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
- Object.getProperty and Object.setProperty built-ins that call
[[GetProperty]] and [[SetProperty]]
Also, to fully reify property
Hi,
Sorry have not had a chance to reply on this thread earlier. I do really like
the direction that Jeremy pushes to, but still I don't understand why do we
need to introduce new syntax to the language. I think `class` expression is
completely unnecessary, why not a function ? I forked
On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
My previous proposal for class-like sugar for traits composition was not
popular. Whereas, in the absence of problem #5, I suspect the traitsjs
library would be. As previously observed on this list, traitsjs is more
JavaScripty. Ideal
On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
My previous proposal for class-like sugar for traits composition was not
popular. Whereas, in the absence of problem #5, I suspect the traitsjs
library would be. As previously observed on
I've posted a new strawman proposal for the ideas originally discussed in this
thread.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
Allen
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
We had this in ES4, together with the provision that you could have
I've posted a new strawman proposal for the ideas originally discussed in
this thread.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
Feedback:
- I like contrasting the concept “application data domain” with the concept
“program definition domain”. Maybe mention
I've posted a new strawman proposal for the ideas originally discussed in
this thread.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
I forgot: +1
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
I've posted a new strawman proposal for the ideas originally discussed in
this thread.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
Allen
A comparison to 'dict' which shares the
A guide and background article is now available:
http://norbertlindenberg.com/2011/11/ecmascript-globalization-api/index.html
Regards,
Norbert
On Nov 2, 2011, at 0:10 , Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
A working draft of the ECMAScript Globalization API Specification for review
at the November TC
Hi,
(unfortunately Twitter is again doesn't fit for a more than 140 ch
discussion, so moving here)
I'd like to still notice the possibility of accepting the almost
everything is expression approach for JS. After Erlang I very often
miss this possibility.
The idea is to make most of
On 11.11.2011 11:07, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
P.S:
Regarding Dave's `do { .. }` -- we may omit `do` and just evaluate the
block.
let a = {
print('doing stuff');
100;
};
It's of course seems ambiguous with an object initialiser (at first
glance), but it's only at first glance. Obviously
Brendan and Dave mention explicit semicolon. Yes, it's seems so by the
grammar (though, have to check more precisely), but it can be acceptable
price.
It's a serious price, though. Today if I write:
if (q) { ... }
else { ... }
(f())
then ASI kicks in after the else body. If we
On 11.11.2011 11:43, David Herman wrote:
Brendan and Dave mention explicit semicolon. Yes, it's seems so by the grammar
(though, have to check more precisely), but it can be acceptable price.
It's a serious price, though. Today if I write:
if (q) { ... }
else { ... }
(f())
29 matches
Mail list logo
