On 16.11.2011 10:27, Russell Leggett wrote:
Given the recent conversation about class as operator and its likely
composition with |, I propose turning the syntax:
/MemberExpression/ | /ProtoLiteral/
into
extends /MemberExpression ProtoLiteral/
In the common case of using the class
Hi again,
Please excuse my ignorance, but:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 07:41 -0800, Brendan Eich wrote:
To quote Waldemar from
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2010-October/011972.html
It's a judgment call, and I'd take these on a case-by-case basis.
For const and let, I see
On 16 November 2011 20:45, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for being too brief. Today the following works.
f();
...
function f() { ... }
but the following does not:
f();
...
let f = function f() {};
I think it is important that we keep the forward reference
On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote:
It's simply that
var x = someProto beget { ... }
reads nicer then
var x = someProto extends { ... }
I'd prefer to have readability on the non class related
On Nov 16, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Erik Corry wrote:
In script type=harmony mode we plan to support the new non-hoisted
semantics.
Block-hoisted -- temporal dead zone. Requires a sentinel value still in
general. Hope this is not bad news!
/be
___
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
One thing that all of these discussions are missing is the hoisting
property of function and any possible future classes. If we use let
Point = ... we lose all hoisting and the order of your declarations
starts to matter and we will end up
On 16 November 2011 20:03, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2011, at 4:18 AM, Erik Corry wrote:
In script type=harmony mode we plan to support the new non-hoisted
semantics.
Block-hoisted -- temporal dead zone. Requires a sentinel value still in
general. Hope this is not
On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Yes, I understand, but it doesn't answer the question -- why do we need
_additional_ keyword
Infix operators can be conditional keywords. That's the current plan for is,
IINM.
Dave
___
And now we also have a bugzilla product into which you can report issues found
in the specification:
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=ECMAScript%20Globalization%20API
Items that may need discussion among a larger audience should still go to
es-discuss@mozilla.org.
Thanks,
On Nov 16, 2011, at 9:31 PM, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Yes, I understand, but it doesn't answer the question -- why do we need
_additional_ keyword
Infix operators can be conditional keywords. That's the current plan for is,
IINM.
and
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:24 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Someone who shall remain nameless shot this down when I floated it
privately. But I just have to throw this out there, because I kind of can't
stop myself falling in love with it...
We used to have this (mis-)feature
On 17.11.2011 11:24, David Herman wrote:
Someone who shall remain nameless shot this down when I floated it privately.
But I just have to throw this out there, because I kind of can't stop myself
falling in love with it...
We used to have this (mis-)feature for dynamically extending scope
|
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:24 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Someone who shall remain nameless shot this down when I floated it privately.
But I just have to throw this out there, because I kind of can't stop myself
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:28 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
However, we nevertheless had/have the semantics for `with', and it may cause
confusion.
Right, that's the natural objection. But... with-statements are dead, long live
with-expressions!
Moreover, you need to specify that [noNewLineHere]
On 11/16/11 11:30 PM, David Herman wrote:
|
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:24 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
mailto:dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Someone who shall remain nameless shot this down when I floated
it privately. But I
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:24 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
I don't get it yet. What do you mean by dynamically extending prototype
chains? What does the above
16 matches
Mail list logo
