Looking back through the archives, it seems like the discussion of future
disposal/cancellation trailed off without reaching a resolution. Was this
addressed in one of the face-to-face spec meetings and I missed it in the
minutes?
-kg
___
es-discuss mail
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> I don't think we have a consensus yet within TC39 WRT whether providing
> abstract classes of this sort is a good idea for JS, so I would be
> reluctant to push the matter to the committee at this time.
>
I didn't mean to suggest the i
Jason,
I don't think we have a consensus yet within TC39 WRT whether providing
abstract classes of this sort is a good idea for JS, so I would be reluctant
to push the matter to the committee at this time.
I don't really see why it even needs to addressed at the implementation level
at this t
If a term is not explicitly defined by the spec. then the English dictionary
definition applies: "4) being with one or others or in the specified or
understood place"
This is further clarified by the introductory paragraphs of chapter 15 that
say: "Unless otherwise specified...if a function or
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Jason Orendorff
wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> wrote:
>>
>> > ES6 could provide a Mapping class, in a standard module, that works like
>> > this:
>> > https://gist.github.com/jorendorff/5662673
>> >
>> > All those methods are generic.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> `undefined` is a valid initial value for Array.prototype.reduce.
> `undefined` will also trigger the default parameter, so this works until
> nothing is provided, which breaks Step 10.
>
I guess that's what my question boils down to: is `unde
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > ES6 could provide a Mapping class, in a standard module, that works like
> > this:
> > https://gist.github.com/jorendorff/5662673
> >
> > All those methods are generic. Map would be a subclass of Mapping, with
> its
> > own fast non-gene
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Till Schneidereit
wrote:
> I couldn't find any precise definition for the spec term "present", so
> this is not entirely clear to me.
>
> Example:
> In step 7 of 15.4.3.21 Array.prototype.reduce, a TypeError must be thrown
> if the optional argument `initialValue`
Hi David,
ah, thanks. That is indeed what I was looking for. Sadly, it isn't entirely
clear to me that any sort of real conclusion has been reached.
thanks,
till
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:23 PM, David Bruant wrote:
> Hi Till,
>
> I believe Boris Zbarski touched on this recently at
> http://
Hi Till,
I believe Boris Zbarski touched on this recently at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013AprJun/0428.html
(I haven't read the full thread, so can't tell what the conclusion were,
but it's probably worth checking out)
David
Le 31/05/2013 04:33, Till Schneidere
I couldn't find any precise definition for the spec term "present", so this
is not entirely clear to me.
Example:
In step 7 of 15.4.3.21 Array.prototype.reduce, a TypeError must be thrown
if the optional argument `initialValue` isn't present. If a value of
`undefined` does *not* cause the argument
11 matches
Mail list logo
