Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 10:54 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Brandon Benvie
wrote:
On 3/21/2013 10:14 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
And with rest patterns at the end only, I don't think you'd ever want
to write "..." without a subpattern. The only differe
Hm, Maybe I should establish an issue for Chrome, instead of IE. Thanks.
Subject: Re: Unicode Escape sequences for keywords, what's the correct
behaviour?
From: al...@wirfs-brock.com
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:41:35 -0700
CC: es-discuss@mozilla.org
To: infinte.c...@hotmail.com
As a keyword.
T
> Subject: Re: Unicode Escape sequences for keywords, what's the correct
> behaviour?
> From: al...@wirfs-brock.com
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:41:35 -0700
> CC: es-discuss@mozilla.org
> To: infinte.c...@hotmail.com
>
> As a keyword.
>
> This is clarified i
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Your writing is unclear and overlong, and full of unjustified airs of
> grievance -- please work on it.
I'll do more than that, I publicly and officially apologies for my writing
plus I will step back from this ML for an undefined amount o
Correction:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Kevin Reid wrote:
> Yes. SES requires 'with' as a means to hook into 'global' variable reads
> and writes; without it, it is impossible
without performing a parse and scope analysis of the code to be evaluated
> to emulate the semantics of browser
Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 1:57 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
First, it doesn't matter: my point about SES being deployed in the real
world stands, whether SES
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> On 3/21/2013 1:57 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
>> Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
>>
>
Thanks.
>>> If I understand correctly, this wrapper
On 3/21/2013 1:57 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
/be
Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 11:39 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
yes, SES, the non real wo
No 'with' required for SES AFAIK. Do you have a code.google.com link?
Cc'ing Mark in case he is not reading es-discuss frequently.
/be
Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 11:39 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
yes, SES, the non real world out there, needs __proto__ ...
shenani
> > Ideally, everything will "just work", so that legacy modules can be used
> transparently alongside ES6 modules.
>
> I disagree with this premise. It shouldn't be ES6's responsibility to
> auto-detect historical non-ES6 systems.
Of course, I tend to agree with your disagreement : ) But in any
> - look for a special comment at the beginning
>
For backward compat, you'd have to put the comment in new ES6 modules.
That's a spank-belt worse than "use strict" ; )
> - look at the module name
>
import "npm/moment" as moment;
>
This is a good option, but it's not transparent. If you u
On Mar 21, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Ideally, everything will "just work", so that legacy modules can be used
> transparently alongside ES6 modules.
I disagree with this premise. It shouldn't be ES6's responsibility to
auto-detect historical non-ES6 systems. If you want to build
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:38 AM, François REMY <
francois.remy@outlook.com> wrote:
> Phasing out failed experiments *is* possible. I don't think a browser that
> doesn't support or or even document.layers would have a
> lot of problems to view the web as it's now, yet I remember a time where
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> The problem is that the `options.metadata === "node"` test is
> hand-waiving. In a mixed environment where a module may be an ES6 module
> or a legacy Node module, how is the loader supposed to know how to link it?
> Ideally, everything wil
Referencing the presentation at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=meetings:meeting_mar_12_2013.
The module loader proposal outlined in the presentation is looking pretty
solid. However, there is a weakness which I would like to point out.
The primary change in this proposal is a "link" hook
On 3/21/2013 11:39 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
yes, SES, the non real world out there, needs __proto__ ...
shenanigans all over the world because of '__proto__' ain't important.
SES is deployed on major Google properties. I recall also Yahoo! but
not sure if still up.
I
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
yes, SES, the non real world out there, needs __proto__ ...
shenanigans all over the world because of '__proto__' ain't important.
SES is deployed on major Google properties. I recall also Yahoo! but not
sure if still up.
I think again you are out of line. Am I wrong
On 3/21/2013 10:54 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 3/21/2013 10:14 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
And with rest patterns at the end only, I don't think you'd ever want
to write "..." without a subpattern. The only difference between [x,
y] and
>> Ah! I would expect [x,y] to only match arrays whose length is 2. Is there a
>> benefit to being more lenient?
> I wouldn't expect that at all, for the same reason I would expect `let { x, y
> } = { x: 1, y: 2, z: 3 }` to work.
I’m influenced by Prolog that has [x,y] and [x,y | rest]. Matching
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> On 3/21/2013 10:14 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>>> And with rest patterns at the end only, I don't think you'd ever want
>>> to write "..." without a subpattern. The only difference between [x,
>>> y] and [x, y, ...] would be that the latte
On 3/21/2013 10:14 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
And with rest patterns at the end only, I don't think you'd ever want
to write "..." without a subpattern. The only difference between [x,
y] and [x, y, ...] would be that the latter (somewhat redundantly)
checks the presence of a length property.
> Yeah, rest patterns in other places were already decided out of scope
> for ES6 a while ago. And I did not include them here either because it
> is far from clear what a reasonable semantics should be for all kinds
> of corner cases. Just consider:
>
> let [a, b, c, ...middle, x, y, z] = {'0':
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
> Does Module support the structured cloning ? (ie can you store M in
> indexedDB for example ?)
>
I don't see how that would be possible since functions cannot be cloned.
Functions may reference things in its lexical context.
--
erik
_
Le 06/03/2013 23:31, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt a écrit :
>2) What is the nature of the bindings created with the Module constructor?
>In the following scenario, what is output?
>
> var a = 123;
> var M = new Module({ a: a });
>
> a = 456;
> console.log(M.a === a); // bound to "var a"
As a keyword.
This is clarified in the ES6 draft
(http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-7.6.1 )
Allen
On Mar 21, 2013, at 3:04 AM, BelleveInvis wrote:
> If a keyword represented as unicode escape sequences, should it interpreted
> as identifier or keyword?
>
> Example co
On 21 March 2013 00:04, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:refutable_matching
>
> - Would love to see examples for arrays. Especially if there are more
> element patterns (lhs) than array elements (rhs).
Good point. I added some.
> - Possible future extensio
On 21 March 2013 10:04, BelleveInvis wrote:
> If a keyword represented as unicode escape sequences, should it
> interpreted as identifier or keyword?
>
> Example code:
>
> \u0076\u0061\u0072 a
>
> Should it throw a syntax error?
>
Get even more confusing when you assign to it :D
tru\u0065=1
On 21 March 2013 11:04, BelleveInvis wrote:
> If a keyword represented as unicode escape sequences, should it interpreted
> as identifier or keyword?
>
> Example code:
>
> \u0076\u0061\u0072 a
>
> Should it throw a syntax error?
Not entirely clear. There is a bug for it:
https://bugs.ecmasc
Hi all
I thought I'd share an update of my mental js work. I have since reduced
the parse time of mental and now added a DOM sandbox that uses ES5 to allow
safe manipulation of the DOM. This is so cool because it means that mental
can take control over your dom and then we can choose what we allow
If a keyword represented as unicode escape sequences, should it interpreted as
identifier or keyword?
Example code:
\u0076\u0061\u0072 a
Should it throw a syntax error?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-dis
> If against all odds, all code everywhere *did* magically drop __proto__
> in favor of Object.setPrototypeOf, then SES and similar subsets would be
> unable to protect secure code from ambient Object.setPrototypeOf usage
> from the insecure side on the secure side's objects, unless
> Object.setPro
31 matches
Mail list logo
