On 19.12.2011 2:26, Mike Samuel wrote:
2011/12/18 Dmitry Soshnikovdmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
On 18.12.2011 23:18, Mike Samuel wrote:
2011/12/17 Dmitry Soshnikovdmitry.soshni...@gmail.com:
Hi,
Just recently was working with Ruby's code. And found useful again its
(actually from Perl)
On 19/12/2011, at 10:10, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Have we already planned paren-free calls? Seems I missed approved strawman.
Only for block lambdas, if I'm not mistaken:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014595.html
quote
3) Should paren free calls be introduced?
I'm
With the new direct proxies API, there is potentially another solution to
combining proxies with private names:
private name property get/set could bypass the proxy entirely and be
forwarded unconditionally to the target, just like |typeof|,
|Object.getPrototypeOf| and [[Class]].
Pro:
- no
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/018924.html
``use version 6;``
In which thread on esdiscuss should I have read about that?
- peter
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Hello,
I see error here. Unless I misunderstood something, in present state it so
that:
var n = Name();
proxy[n] // triggers handler.get(target, n.public);
proxy[n.public] // triggers handler.get(target, ToString(n.public));
and n.public is object, not string. So get handler can easily
Thanks Jorge, yes, similarly this conclusion was in my memory too.
Dmitry.
On 19.12.2011 13:53, Jorge wrote:
On 19/12/2011, at 10:10, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Have we already planned paren-free calls? Seems I missed approved strawman.
Only for block lambdas, if I'm not mistaken:
But wouldn’t that rather be a reason for making these functions part of the
core language?
On Dec 19, 2011, at 8:48 , Erik Corry wrote:
Both the proposed implementations do fp rounding twice, and so produce
an inaccurate answer. I think we should probably leave it to the user
to define
I did start a related thread a while ago [1].
Brendan's response [2] explained a few things:
Please read RFC 4329:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4329
There will be *at least* a ;version=6 parameter you can use, probably
with either application/javascript and application/ecmascript -- I have
2011/12/19 Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk
Hello,
I see error here. Unless I misunderstood something, in present state it so
that:
var n = Name();
proxy[n] // triggers handler.get(target, n.public);
proxy[n.public] // triggers handler.get(target, ToString(n.public));
and n.public is
Le 19/12/2011 11:03, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
With the new direct proxies API, there is potentially another solution
to combining proxies with private names:
private name property get/set could bypass the proxy entirely and be
forwarded unconditionally to the target, just like |typeof|,
Le 19/12/2011 11:03, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
(...)
Separate getPrivate/setPrivate traps would avoid this confusion:
(...)
One thing that is unsaid in the current proposal is whether private
names can be used with Object.defineProperty and
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor. I think that private
2011/12/19 Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com
Calling the trap and catching a special exception is something that we
have avoided in the proxy design thus far. One possibility is to have the
getPrivate trap return a boolean. If the trap returns false, the proxy
will forward the private name
2011/12/19 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
The public part is an unforgeable object (with the same .toString than
the private name), so there is no ambiguity in a public-private map.
You use the unforgeable public object as key in the map, so no collision
issue due to string forgeability.
2011/12/19 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
Le 19/12/2011 11:03, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
(...)
Separate getPrivate/setPrivate traps would avoid this confusion:
(...)
One thing that is unsaid in the current proposal is whether private
names can be used with Object.defineProperty and
Hello,
I'd say this is not specialty of get trap. If you don’t know the private
name itself (and the scenario where you don’t know it but you want to
forward it is the interesting scenario), you cannot use any API since you
simply don’t have the name which you could pass. If nothing more,
2011/12/19 Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk
I'd say this is not specialty of get trap. If you don’t know the private
name itself (and the scenario where you don’t know it but you want to
forward it is the interesting scenario), you cannot use any API since you
simply don’t have the name which
Why
use version 6;
and not
use version 6;
? Just to be sure ES 6 code breaks in old browsers ?
And what do you mean by opt-in for ES6 ? New syntax ? Everything in ES 6 ?
I'm thinking about weakmaps:
- on the one hand, you want to use native weakmaps when available so
you would want to opt-in
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
xavierm02@gmail.comwrote:
Why
use version 6;
and not
use version 6;
? Just to be sure ES 6 code breaks in old browsers ?
And what do you mean by opt-in for ES6 ? New syntax ? Everything in ES 6
?
I'm thinking about weakmaps:
-
Mark, It was coined by Remy Sharp
http://remysharp.com/2010/10/08/what-is-a-polyfill/
...I still don't understand how it differs from shim
Rick
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Xavier MONTILLET
As an aside (I'm not arguing for or against inline versioning here) isn't:
use version 6;
more backwards compatible?
For example, consider the following:
use version 6; with ({hi:Hi!}) alert(hi);
I believe this is a valid program in ES5, that treating use version 6 as a
My understanding:
- Shim: retrofit a new API in an older context.
- Polyfill: “A shim that mimics a future API providing fallback functionality
to older browsers.”
On Dec 19, 2011, at 19:54 , Rick Waldron wrote:
Mark, It [polyfill] was coined by Remy Sharp
2011/12/19 Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de:
But wouldn’t that rather be a reason for making these functions part of the
core language?
MS have proposed log2, log10, log1p. This makes more sense to me.
These already exist and are useful in other languages and are not too
hard to implement.
22 matches
Mail list logo
