It looks like the beginnings of an outline were added to the standard
modules list living under '@iter' with zip and unzip so far:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules_standard. But no
separate strawman yet.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Yes, this was the
Yes, this was the plan. I don't see a strawman, yet. Cc'ing jorendorff.
/be
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
At this point I think we are better of moving towards iterator
methods. For example if we had an islice like the one in Python's
itertools [*] we can do:
for (let v of islice(arr, start, stop)) {
Benoit Marchant wrote:
Isn't it possible internally to allow a property access only by "this" ?
No. For one thing, the design has to include class-private instance
variables, not instance-private, so you need other.foo as well as
this.foo (consider private x and y for Point2D add method).
A
> Isn't it possible internally to allow a property access only by "this" ?
>
Ah-hem:
priv(this).anyPropertyYouWantPlaya;
: )
Using the definition of "priv" from previous messages is this thread.
{ Kevin }
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mo
Thanks Brendan, that make sense but that's more than what I think I'm looking
for. What I'm looking for is a way to store a value in a object's property that
can only be accessed from a property access stand point by the object itself.
My only goal is to make sure that outside code can't break e
Benoit Marchant wrote:
I guess I don't quite understand why it seems contentious to add a
"private" property to property descriptors which already "reserve"
properties like "value", "enumerable" or "writable".
"private" is a meta description of a property like "value",
"enumerable" or "writab
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:47, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>> Why would you use a square bracket notation rather than a . Property access
>> notation?
>>
>> [] is typically only use when the property name is in a variable, which is
>> not the case when you write your own object.
>
> True - but for sym
At this point I think we are better of moving towards iterator
methods. For example if we had an islice like the one in Python's
itertools [*] we can do:
for (let v of islice(arr, start, stop)) {
...
}
this would be equivalent to your proposed
arr.forEach((v) => { ... }, undefined, start, stop
Just to clarify, the example I gave of WeakMap usage breaking with proxies
was just to illustrate how a type of private data currently in use
alongside proxies can break the target object purely by accident. While I
do think [[CallMethod]] would go a long way to ameliorating the problem, I
still be
Good idea. However, I don't like the fact "arr.forEach(f,null,-1,0)" doesn't
walk the array backwards properly. Not sure it's worth to have it built-in
though.
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:06:23 +0100
> Subject: Array method ranges
> From: e...@qfox.nl
> T
> Why would you use a square bracket notation rather than a . Property
> access notation?
>
> [] is typically only use when the property name is in a variable, which is
> not the case when you write your own object.
>
True - but for symbols, your only option is square brackets:
var sym = new
What about adding specific range arguments to the es5 array methods
(forEach, map, etc)? Currently the start (inclusive) and stop
(exclusive) is always 0 ... length, but what if you only want to map
over a sub range of the array? Or maybe I want to traverse the array
in reverse? I'd either have to
Le 22/01/2013 21:09, David Bruant a écrit :
Le 22/01/2013 20:05, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
Symbol-keyed indexing on the A face is distinct from symbol-keyed
indexing on the B face. But that's OK: it's the job of the membrane
to separate the A and the B face in the first place.
I don't think that
Le 24/01/2013 09:52, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
2013/1/23 David Bruant mailto:bruan...@gmail.com>>
Le 23/01/2013 09:38, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
3) because of JS's "invoke = get + apply" semantics, by
default a proxy always leaves the |this| value pointing at the
proxy
2013/1/23 David Bruant
> Le 23/01/2013 09:38, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
>
>> 3) because of JS's "invoke = get + apply" semantics, by default a proxy
>> always leaves the |this| value pointing at the proxy.
>>
>> Looking only at 3), sometimes this is what you want, and sometimes it
>> isn't.
>>
> I
After email exchanged with Andreas, it seems that some emails clients
(most modern ones?) do not work well when changing the email title;
something I hadn't noticed on my own email client.
I apologize for the inconvenience to anyone it has bothered and will
fork thread less often from now on.
2013/1/24 Cameron McCormack
> On 18/01/13 9:09 AM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>
>> I think this sounds fine. Most web developers don't expect the
>> current spec'd behavior, even though to me it seems more natural.
>>
>> IE has the current behavior and I expect we would migrate to the new
>> behavior
On 18/01/13 9:09 AM, Travis Leithead wrote:
I think this sounds fine. Most web developers don't expect the
current spec'd behavior, even though to me it seems more natural.
IE has the current behavior and I expect we would migrate to the new
behavior at some point once it was defined and agreed
18 matches
Mail list logo
