> (1) "Nuke" the special properties (`get`, `set`, and `value` when any of them
> is not defined) on a descriptor returned by `getOwnPropertyDescriptor` which
> shouldn't be inherited through the descriptor's prototype. By "nuke" them, I
> mean specify that they be defined as `undefined`, much l
Given that `defineProperty` uses properties on the prototype of the
descriptor[1] and `getOwnPropertyDescriptor` returns an object which inherits
from `Object.prototype`, the following use-case is volatile:
function copy(from, to) {
for (let name of Object.getOwnPropertyNames(from))
It should be pointed out that KeyKOS resume keys could, like
proper tail-call optimization, eliminate the ability to "walk
the stack" to determine the caller. In KeyKOS, the process had
direct control over usage of the resume key. It could pass it to
an object is was "calling" in place or creat
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Kevin Gadd wrote:
> I really don't understand why the debugger thing is being trotted out
> again. It was addressed at the beginning of the thread: There are lots
> of real world applications that use debugger-style introspection (in
> particular, stack walking) fo
Thanks Allen, those are the answers I wanted to hear :)
Seems like ES 6 proper tail calls will be a good for CPS too.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Angus Croll wrote:
>
> 1. Will proper tail calls only happen in strict mode, and if not a
On Mar 9, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Angus Croll wrote:
> 1. Will proper tail calls only happen in strict mode, and if not are we ok
> with losing backwards compatibility re. [function].caller and
> [callingFunction].arguments?
Apparently yes, there is a note in the draft that we reached that conclusio
Mark S. Miller wrote:
It feels a dramatic divergence from the origin-based security
model,
Indeed! Origin-based security has been a nightmare.
Any access control system with hand-coded access monitoring in a big C++
codebase will be.
In SpiderMonkey + Gecko in Firefox, and probabl
I really don't understand why the debugger thing is being trotted out
again. It was addressed at the beginning of the thread: There are lots
of real world applications that use debugger-style introspection (in
particular, stack walking) for purposes that are not debugging.
Now, to be fair, that ma
I do NOT want to write a debugger and yet I need caller, can you imagine ?
Andrea
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:44 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 08/03/2013 22:19, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
> This opens doors to debuggers (introspection) and APIs magic quite a lot.
>>
> If you want to write a d
1. Will proper tail calls only happen in strict mode, and if not are we ok
with losing backwards compatibility re. [function].caller and [
callingFunction].arguments?
2. Will tail call behavior apply regardless of the tail call syntax? (fn(),
fn.call, fn.apply)?
3. Will tail call behavior apply e
Norbert, for the sake of completeness;
ZeParser (http://github.com/qfox/zeparser) does support complete
unicode identifiers
ZeParser2 (http://github.com/qfox/zeparser2) doesn't (I simply didn't bother)
- peter
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozi
Le 08/03/2013 22:19, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
This opens doors to debuggers (introspection) and APIs magic quite a lot.
If you want to write a debugger, use a debugger API [1] which is only
executed in privileged environments, no?
Debuggers are useful, but pierce encapsulation which is usef
but then again, the list of problems is massive here if it's about
trustiness.
Object.prototype can be enriched or some method changed, parseInt and
parseFloat can be redefined to change payment details and stuff,
String.prototype.trim can be faked to read all written fields before these
are sent i
Norbert,
Can you explain why you think these should be functions on String rather than
part of a more general character classification facility that might be
associated with some more specialized object? The latter approach would seem
to be to have modularity advantages at both the implementa
On 09/03/2013, at 00:54, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> Mark,
> that is an exhaustive list of links and talks but how many real use cases
> where we let the user inject any sort of script code in the website and we
> inject malicious libraries we are not aware, compared with the number of all
> w
On 9 March 2013 01:59, Ariya Hidayat wrote:
> If you check Yusuke's links, that is exactly what Esprima is doing.
> The use of regular expression is reserved only for the slow/uncommon
> code path.
Yeah I can see you are converting a char code into a string using
fromCharCode and comparing it a
>
>
> The functions I proposed accept both numbers and strings.
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:identifier_identification
Ah, I see. I missed what is intended at step 2. Looks very nice, thanks.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Norbert Lindenberg <
ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware
The question I tried to answer was:
> Now, how transpilers are going to solve Object.mixin super call? 'cause once
> again, that should be solved runtime and I am curious, without caller, how
> transpilers are thinking to solve that.
I assumed you didn’t know, which is why I wrote an answer.
18 matches
Mail list logo