On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Mark S. Miller
>> wrote:
>> > To answer this precisely, we need good terminology to distinguish two
>> levels
>> > of abstraction: The distinctio
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Mark S. Miller
> wrote:
> > To answer this precisely, we need good terminology to distinguish two
> levels
> > of abstraction: The distinctions observable to the AP2.flatMap programmer
> > and the coarser d
sorry, point 3 was actually the question about point 2
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm, just a couple of extra question about that page if/when you have time:
>
>1. string and boolean are mentioned, but nowhere in your `struct.js
Uhm, just a couple of extra question about that page if/when you have time:
1. string and boolean are mentioned, but nowhere in your `struct.js`
prolyfill code. Will string and boolean be accepted?
2. `Object` and `Any` are mentioned, but exported as object and any in
your `struct.js`
Awesome, thanks!
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:12 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [In this page](
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:typed_objects), and in the
> latest meeting note too, I can read
On Aug 20, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
> [In this page](http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:typed_objects),
> and in the latest meeting note too, I can read both uint8 and Uint8, as
> example.
Bug. Fixed, thanks.
> **The Question**
> How is `new StructType({x:Uint32
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The good news is that the FF/Safari behavior is a better match to what we want
for ES6 inner scope FunctionDeclarations.
:-D
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
[In this page](http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:typed_objects),
and in the latest meeting note too, I can read both uint8 and Uint8, as
example.
Same if for all other types included `boolean`, and `string`, where these
are historically `typeof variable` without meaning variable is `i
On Jul 31, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I want to refer to the algorithm JSON.parse defines, but not
> necessarily JSON.parse itself (as that can be overridden). Is there
> any preferred way to do that? Or otherwise can JSONParse hook be
> introduced?
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/
On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>> I tend to agree that this particular detail should be considered a
>> spec bug.
>
> Yes, this is a spec bug. How did we miss it? Allen, do you have notes on the
> history?
I was looking at the change history and ES5
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
I tend to agree that this particular detail should be considered a
spec bug.
Yes, this is a spec bug. How did we miss it? Allen, do you have notes on
the history?
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> To answer this precisely, we need good terminology to distinguish two levels
> of abstraction: The distinctions observable to the AP2.flatMap programmer
> and the coarser distinctions observable to the AP2.then programmer. Let's
> start igno
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Mark S. Miller
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Anne, Thanks for the reminder. My message of last night fell into
>> that
>> > same old trap (ignoring the storag
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Mark S. Miller
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Anne, Thanks for the reminder. My message of last night fell into
>> that
>> > same old trap (ignoring the storag
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Mark S. Miller
> wrote:
> > Hi Anne, Thanks for the reminder. My message of last night fell into that
> > same old trap (ignoring the storage cost) and that previous reversal of
> mine
> > is still mostly co
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Hi Anne, Thanks for the reminder. My message of last night fell into that
> same old trap (ignoring the storage cost) and that previous reversal of mine
> is still mostly correct, However, the missing operation is not .fulfill for
> the reas
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com
> In particular, what *kind* of unwrapping does then() do on the input and
> return side (ideally expressed in pseudo-code).
I believe this comes down to the as-yet-unresolved conversation about thenable
assimilation vs. branding and such. In any case, it should
Indeed, nice catch Anne. I guess it's an unfortunate necessity that the monadic
stuff will need to drag along two methods, not just one.
A name like "unit" (or perhaps "of") seems to fit better in my mind, than
introducing another natural-language verb like "accept." Especially since it
will be
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Hi Anne, Thanks for the reminder. My message of last night fell into that
> same old trap (ignoring the storage cost) and that previous reversal of mine
> is still mostly correct, However, the missing operation is not .fulfill for
> the reas
Hi Anne, Thanks for the reminder. My message of last night fell into that
same old trap (ignoring the storage cost) and that previous reversal of
mine is still mostly correct, However, the missing operation is not
.fulfill for the reasons Domenic correctly explains. It is .accept
(possibly named .o
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> I agree that an AP2 system, which is what we are discussing, should not have
> a method named .fulfill for the reasons you state. A promise which, at the
> AP2.flatMap level is "accepted" or "adopted" is, at the AP2.then level
> "resolved".
> The "earlier" you are talking about, IIUC, is the monadic promise variant.
>
I don't like using the term "monadic" because it sounds pointy-headed : )
> Monads are fine things, and a monadic promise=like abstraction would
> probably be useful for some things. However, it is a very different
>
On 20 August 2013 10:54, André Bargull wrote:
> Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>> On 19 August 2013 19:02, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>>>
While debugging a V8 issue I just realised another incompatibility
with introducing lexical funct
On 19 August 2013 19:02, Allen Wirfs-Brock https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>> wrote:
>/
/>/ On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
/>/
/>>/ While debugging a V8 issue I just realised another incompatibility
/>>/ with introducing lexical function declarations in sloppy
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
OnMon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Michaël Rouges
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> What's the point about optional named arguments support, please?
>
> ES6? ES7? abandoned?
Someone else should feel free to correct me, but I*think* that
explicit optional named arguments h
25 matches
Mail list logo
