since in this example I only used the object literal variant. (The function,
array, etc variants do things that Object.create can't do.)
I think this is ultimately the downfall of 'with' as a complete replacement for
| or extends. It works pretty well on objects but no others.
SomeFunc
On Nov 16, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Map/Set:
Size property should be a getter property with no matching setter. It's
defined on the property.
What is its name? size, count, or length? Decide on es-discuss.
Hi Waldemar,
I'm unclear what It's defined on the property
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Gavin Barraclough
barraclo...@apple.comwrote:
On Nov 16, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Map/Set:
Size property should be a getter property with no matching setter. It's
defined on the property.
What is its name? size, count, or length? Decide
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
I like the idea! As it is syntactically different in this role, errors should
be easy to spot.
But I think `with` “points in the wrong direction” (object `obj` *with*
prototype `proto`). That is, to me, it suggests a pointer going from
Map/Set:
Size property should be a getter property with no matching setter. It's
defined on the property.
What is its name? size, count, or length? Decide on es-discuss.
Given that Array already uses `length`, it seems like the obvious choice.
Some of the things discussed should
On 17.11.2011 11:41, 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:
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
I don't get it yet. What do you
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
My first answer was glib, sorry. I'm proposing `with' as a replacement
syntax for |. So the above expression evaluates to the same as
Once again, it's absolutely the same approach which I showed
On 17.11.2011 15:57, Peter van der Zee wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
My first answer was glib, sorry. I'm proposing `with' as a replacement
syntax for|. So the above expression evaluates to the same as
Once again, it's
Once again, it's absolutely the same approach which I showed yesterday with
using `extends'
(https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-November/018478.html).
The *only* thing new about David’s proposal (and intentionally so) is that the
symbol `with` is being reused. So there
Once again, it's absolutely the same approach which I showed yesterday with
using `extends'
(https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-November/018478.html).
The *only* thing new about David’s proposal (and intentionally so) is that
the symbol `with` is being reused. So there
On 17.11.2011 16:04, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Once again, it's absolutely the same approach which I showed
yesterday with using `extends'
(https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-November/018478.html).
The *only* thing new about David’s proposal (and intentionally so) is
that the
Hi,
Thanks for these notes.
Le 17/11/2011 02:19, Waldemar Horwat a écrit :
Here are my rough notes from today's meeting.
Waldemar
IPR discussions
Test262 status
Do you have any details on this point? A roadmap?
Thanks,
David
___
es-discuss
Le 17/11/2011 12:49, Axel Rauschmayer a écrit :
Map/Set:
Size property should be a getter property with no matching
setter. It's defined on the property.
What is its name? size, count, or length? Decide on es-discuss.
Given that Array already uses `length`, it seems like
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Once again, it's absolutely the same approach which I showed yesterday with
using `extends'
(https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-November/018478.html).
My point has absolutely nothing to do with semantics and everything to
On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
since in this example I only used the object literal variant. (The function,
array, etc variants do things that Object.create can't do.)
I think this is ultimately the downfall of 'with' as a complete replacement
for | or extends. It
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Once again, it's absolutely the same approach which I showed yesterday
with using `extends' (
On 17.11.2011 17:08, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Once again, it's absolutely the same approach which I showed
yesterday with using `extends'
(https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-November/018478.html).
My point has absolutely
[cc-ing es-discuss again]
On Nov 17, 2011, at 14:20 , Russell Leggett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
I like the idea! As it is syntactically different in this role, errors should
be
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
I like the idea! As it is syntactically different in this role, errors should
be easy to spot.
But I think `with` “points in the wrong direction” (object `obj` *with*
On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:13 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
Look closer - it is being used as a prefix operator, not an infix operator.
extends Proto {...}
There have been a few alternatives discussed in the previous thread. IMO, in
each one of them, `extends` is awkward. The one you're talking
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
I like the idea! As it is syntactically different in this role, errors
should be easy to spot.
But I think `with` “points in the wrong direction” (object `obj` *with*
prototype `proto`). That is, to me, it suggests a pointer
On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
And `extends` fails completely as the syntax.
This is why it's so wide-spread in other languages for inheritance, right? ;)
In other languages it's not a stand-alone operator but a part of class syntax.
(I don't know Ruby, so maybe you'll
On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:37 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
[cc-ing es-discuss again]
On Nov 17, 2011, at 14:20 , Russell Leggett wrote:
If | changed to allow non-literal RHS values, I could see it getting more
use
obj | comparable | enumerable | {...}
but right now, that has a big
True, that’s the catch. Then it works for composing an inheritance hierarchy
(as in mixins as abstract subclasses).
Another idea for `extends` (if there is more than one object that is being
extended):
extends(comparable, enumerable, foo, bar) { ... }
I'm not sure what the
2011/11/17 David Herman dher...@mozilla.com:
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
Does the below fit your syntax and isn't it lexically ambiguous with
the old with?
obj
with ({ foo: 12 })
{}
___
es-discuss mailing list
Going from
P | o
to
P --with-instance-- o
is fine with me, but it’s not the directionality of [[Prototype]].
I know Allen felt strongly about LTR here. I'm pretty sure I agree with him.
I might be misunderstanding, but note that in both cases above, P comes first,
o comes
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I'm not sure what the semantics of this would be. Are you inventing
multiple-prototype inheritance? That's not going to happen.
Single inheritance, a prototype chain composed from the given objects, in the
given order. An infix
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Mike Samuel wrote:
2011/11/17 David Herman dher...@mozilla.com:
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
Does the below fit your syntax and isn't it lexically ambiguous with
the old with?
obj
with ({ foo: 12 })
{}
This was discussed above;
On 17.11.2011 18:10, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
And `extends` fails completely as the syntax.
This is why it's so wide-spread in other languages for inheritance,
right? ;)
In other languages it's not a stand-alone operator but a part of class
The biggest advantage to beget is that it has the opportunity to become The
Prototype Word. inherit has a lot of people associating it with classical
OO programming. As nice as inherit sounds, it might be good to drop that
baggage.
-Greg
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Rick Waldron
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com 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
Le 17/11/2011 02:40, Mikeal Rogers a écrit :
On Nov 16, 2011, at November 16, 20115:19 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
* Confusion about map. Particularly for people who work on (geographic)
maps.
This is surprising. I might expect confusion with [].map() but not with
geographic maps.
I'm
On Nov 17, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com 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
OK, I have a fix for the missing constructor problem. See:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:class_operator#missing_constructors
Allen
On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
...
As has been said, a
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
And uses `.extend' instance method (inherited from Object) for imperative
delegation-based mixing.
Sure, so that's just a method then, not an `extends` keyword.
OK, though, I'd like again to notice Scala:
object foo extends bar {
On 17.11.2011 21:11, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
And uses `.extend' instance method (inherited from Object) for imperative
delegation-based mixing.
Sure, so that's just a method then, not an `extends` keyword.
Yep. And just a small note (to
5 Let *proto* be the value of the [[Prototype]] internal property of *obj*.
6 Return the result of evaluating this algorithm using the value of *proto* as
the value of *UnaryExpression*
*
*
What is the point of calling class recursively on the [[Prototype]] if the
object does not have constructor
HI all,
we briefly discussed the i18n namespace at the meeting yesterday. It seems
that Globalization (current proposal) could conflict with jQuery plugin,
and also some members were worried about the actual name length.
Somebody mentioned we should wait for module implementation/spec to
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Given that Array already uses `length`, it seems like the obvious choice.
length is my choice as well, for the same reason. It's not writable
in Maps and Sets, so the concerns about the semantics of writing it
don't
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:40 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
This isn't about scope, it's about at what point they're initialized. If you
write:
let x = new C();
let C = class /* whatever */;
you won't get a scope error but a runtime initialization error. Whereas if
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Gavin Barraclough
barraclo...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Map/Set:
Size property should be a getter property with no matching setter. It's
defined on the property.
What is its name? size, count, or length? Decide
On 17.11.2011 22:07, Nebojša Ćirić wrote:
HI all,
we briefly discussed the i18n namespace at the meeting yesterday. It
seems that Globalization (current proposal) could conflict with
jQuery plugin, and also some members were worried about the actual
name length.
Unfortunately I hadn't an
Hi all,
there were couple concerns yesterday about the API (some concrete, some
vague), and we would like to resolve those as soon as possible. Here is the
list of issues I got yesterday (I am sure there's more we didn't manage to
cover):
Q. We need a way to set default locale (per context).
I feel the actual name was less of a problem for the committee, they were
more worried about possible conflicts, and wanted to make sure that we
place our library so that it can't conflict no matter what name we pick.
There are couple of names floating around (including i18n, World, Text).
Locale
Pastebin may be better for showing syntax - http://pastebin.com/pjfdKYss.
17. новембар 2011. 10.33, Nebojša Ćirić c...@google.com је написао/ла:
Hi all,
there were couple concerns yesterday about the API (some concrete, some
vague), and we would like to resolve those as soon as possible.
Regex has not been part of scope of the Globalization API work. I wanted to
find out whether any improvements from an internationalization point of
view are being planned, separately.
Some of the problems include:
- Regex's fail on supplementary characters (above U+). Most of these
are
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
OK, I have a fix for the missing constructor problem. See:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:class_operator#missing_constructors
The biggest thing I see missing is a declarative form that includes
On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
5 Let proto be the value of the [[Prototype]] internal property of obj.
6 Return the result of evaluating this algorithm using the value of proto as
the value of UnaryExpression
What is the point of calling class recursively on the
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.comwrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de
wrote:
Given that Array already uses `length`, it seems like the obvious choice.
length is my choice as well, for the same reason. It's not
Internationalization presentation.
Allen: Can a web developer reasonably depend on his webapp working the
same in a given locale on any conforming browser?
Answer: No.
MarkM: Are there specific areas where it's possible to pin
implementations down more?
Alex: Wants a way to
I agree with the advantage of a declaration containing a name and with it being
similar to functions.
I tried a synthesis of the current inheritance/class proposals:
https://gist.github.com/1374226
Comments welcome; it might please nobody by trying to please everybody.
On Nov 17, 2011, at
On 11/16/11 11:45 AM, Erik Arvidsson 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 behavior
with classes. This requires a
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:39 AM, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Mike Samuel wrote:
2011/11/17 David Herman dher...@mozilla.com:
obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
Does the below fit your syntax and isn't it lexically ambiguous with
the old with?
obj
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Given that Array already uses `length`, it seems like the obvious choice.
length is my choice as well, for the same reason. It's not writable
in Maps and Sets, so
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
Who can resist such a juicy bikeshed...
Yup.
Just wanted to jump in and say non-writable length is consistent with String
behavior as well, but David makes a good point about length implying metric
topology. David's suggestion of `count`
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Nebojša Ćirić wrote:
HI all,
we briefly discussed the i18n namespace at the meeting yesterday. It seems
that Globalization (current proposal) could conflict with jQuery plugin,
and also some members were worried about the actual name length.
Somebody
On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
This would require migration through two steps. One to ES5 strict to get rid
of the with above (which relies on ASI). The second to ES.next or whatever
retasks 'with'.
I don't understand this-- that's already the case, since there's no
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:40 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
This isn't about scope, it's about at what point they're initialized. If you
write:
let x = new C();
let C = class /* whatever */;
you won't get a scope
1) String.prototype.reverse(), as proposed, corrupts supplementary
characters.
It was agreed at the meeting yesterday that this concern is significant enough,
and reverse does not have sufficiently compelling use cases, so should not be
included.
2) String.prototype.toArray(), as
On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:27 PM, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
This would require migration through two steps. One to ES5 strict to get rid
of the with above (which relies on ASI). The second to ES.next or whatever
retasks 'with'.
I don't understand
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM, David Flanagan dflana...@mozilla.comwrote:
On 11/16/11 11:45 AM, Erik Arvidsson 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
On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM, David Flanagan dflana...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 11/16/11 11:45 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
Sorry for being too brief. Today the following works.
f();
...
function f() { ... }
but the following does not:
It is also something that my proposed version of the class operator could
do, because it always creates a function, and could desugar to the same
semantics as the current function style.
This may seem like a nit-pick, but I think it's not: any variant that sits
at statement context in the
On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
OK, I have a fix for the missing constructor problem. See:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:class_operator#missing_constructors
Nit: [[ctor]], obviously a temporary hack-name. How about [[ClassConstructor]]?
or maybe
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
I'm with Allen. If ES classes can contain any initialization code, I
think it should run in program order, interleaved with top-level
statements. Anything else is just confusing.
This is a great point, which I'd overlooked (not sure if
On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
If I have code of the kind Mike Samuel showed:
obj
with ({ foo: 12 })
{}
and I migrate directly into ES-whatever with 'with' as you propose (instead
of |), then I do not get an early error.
Understood.
Also, using 'with' around object
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:08 PM, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
If I have code of the kind Mike Samuel showed:
obj
with ({ foo: 12 })
{}
and I migrate directly into ES-whatever with 'with' as you propose (instead
of |), then I do not get an early
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:08 PM, David Herman wrote:
Prototype extension or delegation is not the same as FRU at all -- the
delegating object can shadow proto-properties,
That's precisely what makes it analogous to FRU. You functionally update
Q. API is too Java like. Use shorthand to invoke formatters.
A. I would like to hear proposals on how to make it more JS like. Adding
shorthand syntax is easy, but most of TC39 members were against having 2
ways of doing things first time we proposed it.
Here is an example of current API in
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Nebojša Ćirić wrote:
Looking at the
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules_examples:
module i18n from '@Globalization'
Nit: we've been using '@lowercase' convention, ideally with a single lower-case
word, in naming built-ins.
is how modules
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Nebojša Ćirić wrote:
Q. API is too Java like. Use shorthand to invoke formatters.
A. I would like to hear proposals on how to make it more JS like. Adding
shorthand syntax is easy, but most of TC39 members were against having 2 ways
of doing things first time we
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:29 PM, David Herman wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:08 PM, David Herman wrote:
Prototype extension or delegation is not the same as FRU at all -- the
delegating object can shadow proto-properties,
That's precisely
Nit: still would want the @, so '@globalization' or something shorter.
'@locale'?
I was just making sure I got your idea right. I'll use @ in the future.
That's a good start at a shim hack. Better still would be to work
incrementally to eliminate the v8Locale global property.
Chrome
I was talking with Nebojša about the Object.system.load interface for
loading globalization, thinking from the user side.
Brendan's email suggested something like this:
Object.system.load = function(name, callback) {
if (name === '@g11n') {
callback(v8Locale);
}
};
That would make
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
This would involve changing
The value of this internal property is a new function object defined as if
by function(){}.
To
The value of this internal property is a new function object defined as if by
function(...args){
I didn't make up load from whole cloth, there's a proposal at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:module_loaders
Module people should weigh in.
/be
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was talking with Nebojša about the Object.system.load interface for
loading
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
OK, I have a fix for the missing constructor problem. See:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:class_operator#missing_constructors
Nit: [[ctor]], obviously a temporary
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
We can debate whether Default Constructors should do a:
if (super.constructor isnt Object) super.constructor()
but that is a more basic question about whether constructors (default or
otherwise) should always do implicit super calls.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
We can debate whether Default Constructors should do a:
if (super.constructor isnt Object) super.constructor()
but that is a more basic question about
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Roozbeh Pournader rooz...@google.com wrote:
That would make something like this the minimum code needed to use the module:
var g11n;
Object.system.load(@g11n, function (g11n_module) {
g11n = g11n_module;
});
I guess I was wrong about the minimum code. The
We intend to have a synchronous API for accessing the built-in modules (those
beginning with @ in their URL), as well as a synchronous way to access
modules that have already been loaded. This went by briefly in July:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-July/015929.html
I'm
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Roozbeh Pournader rooz...@google.com wrote:
That would make something like this the minimum code needed to use the
module:
var g11n;
Object.system.load(@g11n, function (g11n_module) {
g11n =
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
We can debate whether Default Constructors should do a:
if (super.constructor isnt Object)
Array destructuring and length:
let [a, b, c, d, ... r] = {2: 3} | [1, 2]
Obvious: a is 1; b is 2.
What are c, d, and r?
c = 2.
d = undefined.
r = empty.
Fixed property destructuring doesn't rely on length.
Vararg r destructuring uses length.
The semantics of length will match that of slice.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.comwrote:
Array destructuring and length:
let [a, b, c, d, ... r] = {2: 3} | [1, 2]
Obvious: a is 1; b is 2.
What are c, d, and r?
c = 2.
d = undefined.
r = empty.
Fixed property destructuring doesn't rely on length.
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
sorry that last one didn't go to the group - ignore. This new gmail interface
screwed me up ;)
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com
wrote:
At this point, if Allen's proposal included a
1) String.prototype.reverse(), as proposed, corrupts supplementary
characters. Clause 6 of Ecma-262 redefines the word character as a 16-bit
unsigned value used to represent a single 16-bit unit of text, that is, a
UTF-16 code unit. In contrast, the phrase Unicode character is used for
Fortunately we dropped reverse in the TC 39 meeting yesterday - nobody had an
idea who would use it.
I brought up combining character sequences as a concern for the other proposed
functions (startsWith etc.). There the majority opinion was that the model of
the existing String functions,
Hi Luke,
For String.prototype.toArray, I didn't propose different behavior. The part of
my message that you omitted continues The function should be named to clearly
indicate that it returns an array of UTF-16 code units. This also allows us to
offer a parallel function that returns an array
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Tom: Use a null target to indicate a permanently virtual object.
Brendan: Proxy.DonJuan
He refuses to commit.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com wrote:
Array.from(a) is superfluous because it's expressed even simpler as
[... a]. DaveH withdrew it.
Perhaps Array.from() was either misunderstood or miscommunicated. I
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.comwrote:
Array destructuring and length:
let [a, b, c, d, ... r] = {2: 3} | [1, 2]
Obvious: a is 1; b is 2.
What are c, d, and r?
c = 2.
Nit: This should be c = 3, because {2: 3} means ({2: x} | [1, 2])[2] is x,
right?
d
92 matches
Mail list logo
