I'd like to point out a example where using different sources (from older
and newer versions of a language) inside one runtime environment is used
fairly successfully.
Each OpenGL version comes with a new version of the GLSL language, which
may break things. On top of my head this was the case
On Mon 11 Aug 2014 21:30, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com writes:
Now pretend that for-of works on strings... (maybe it already does, for
all I know
It does. It iterates over code-points in the string.
Suppose I want to find bind in the spec, I open the spec up and search down
looking for bind but I don't hit it in the table of contents. If I did, I
would stop and then hit the link and it would take me to 19.2.3.2.
The TOC has three levels e.g. it has 19.2.3 but not what is under it and
Le 12 août 2014 à 14:32, Perry Smith pedz...@gmail.com a écrit :
Suppose I want to find bind in the spec, I open the spec up and search down
looking for bind but I don't hit it in the table of contents. If I did, I
would stop and then hit the link and it would take me to 19.2.3.2.
The
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Perry Smith pedz...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose I want to find bind in the spec, I open the spec up and search down
looking for bind but I don't hit it in the table of contents. [...]
Are you using the PDF version or the HTML version?
If the HTML version, grab
Were denormals discussed at the TC39 meeting? I can't seem to find them in
the meeting notes.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
We didn't get to them at the July meeting. I'll put them on the agenda for
Sept.
The likely proposal will be to provide a Math.demormz(x) function and perhaps
also Math.fdzround(x)
Allen
On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:15 AM, JF Bastien wrote:
Were denormals discussed at the TC39 meeting? I can't
On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Perry Smith pedz...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose I want to find bind in the spec, I open the spec up and search
down looking for bind but I don't hit it in the table of contents. [...]
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
We didn't get to them at the July meeting. I'll put them on the agenda
for Sept.
Thanks.
The likely proposal will be to provide a Math.demormz(x) function and
perhaps also Math.fdzround(x)
I'd be interested
What's the explanation and reason for this strange characteristic of
the OBJECT element in Firefox?
Firefox 31:
typeof document.createElement(object)
function
Function.prototype.toString.call(document.createElement(object));
TypeError: Function.prototype.toString called on incompatible object
If
On 12.08.2014 11:01, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I see Python 3 as an excellent example plus Mozilla has JavaScript
versioning since quite ever plus we have WebComponents and the ability
to put es6-script in place or flags in nodejs ... you name it, we
had way to think about the how to but it was
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Christoph Martens
cmarten...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I have pretty much the same view as Andrea.
Back then, the w3c discussions about HTML5 were pretty much the same.
On one side, they introduced an all-new invalid-to-old-browsers doctype
(!doctype html)
I wonder to what extent the clean break with the past folks actually
write/maintain client-side software used by millions of people on the
web. I work at the Wikimedia foundation, and I can testify that in
backend code we *love* es6 (and es6-shim), but if the front end code
isn't ES3-compatible
On Aug 11, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
So I'm trying to figure out how to spec the HTML spec's Loader.
We should coordinate -- I've been actively working on this (not the spec per
se, but the design) with people engaged in the JS modules work. The HTML
default loader
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, David Herman wrote:
On Aug 11, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
So I'm trying to figure out how to spec the HTML spec's Loader.
We should coordinate -- I've been actively working on this (not the spec
per se, but the design) with people engaged in
Le 12 août 2014 à 18:44, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com a écrit :
What's the explanation and reason for this strange characteristic of
the OBJECT element in Firefox?
Firefox 31:
typeof document.createElement(object)
function
I work at Twitter, mobile Web first and lately in TweetDeck, and while I am
not representing my company in this ML at all I write code for millions of
users daily and I don't see any problem in having an ES6 that solves old
ES3 gotchas because here the catch you probably missed: there's nothing
damn if (typeof obj === 'object' obj === null) of course ...
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I work at Twitter, mobile Web first and lately in TweetDeck, and while I
am not representing my company in this ML at all I write code for
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
the new software will be
transpiled in ES3 compatible code ... it's not the other way round Scott,
https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/issues/909
and I am not sure why you thought about it.
I look
On 8/12/14, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 12 août 2014 à 18:44, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com a écrit :
What's the explanation and reason for this strange characteristic of
the OBJECT element in Firefox?
Firefox 31:
typeof document.createElement(object)
function
And I completely agree with that and either fixing or non fixing ES3 known
problems you will still looking forward for that transpiler.
Bad news, it would be **very easy to fix ES3 in ES6** while it's kinda
hard/improbably to implement `Object.observe`, `generators` and `await` in
ES3 ... so this
Last thing before flames, reading back my last reply ... yes, I am
simplifying the problem, but I've stated already we had time to think
through this and make it work in a way or another ... just another engine
does not bring justice to the work that need to be done in order to make
this migration
On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
What's the explanation and reason for this strange characteristic of
the OBJECT element in Firefox?
Firefox 31:
typeof document.createElement(object)
function
Function.prototype.toString.call(document.createElement(object));
TypeError:
Right now String(symbol) throws because it uses ToString which is spec'ed
to throw.
I'm suggesting that we special case String(value) to do a type check for
Symbol and return the same string as Symbol.prototype.toString.call(value)
does.
Assume my script is http://example.com/test.js, and assume that there is
no extra information (nobody has registered any module names or anything
like that). If I do:
import a;
import ./a;
import /a;
import //example.com/a;
import http://example.com/a;
...am I supposed to end
On 8/12/14, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Allen -
On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
What's the explanation and reason for this strange characteristic of
the OBJECT element in Firefox?
Firefox 31:
typeof document.createElement(object)
function
Le 12 août 2014 à 22:35, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com a écrit :
Right now String(symbol) throws because it uses ToString which is spec'ed to
throw.
I'm suggesting that we special case String(value) to do a type check for
Symbol and return the same string as
See the implemention in es6-module-loader:
https://github.com/ModuleLoader/es6-module-loader/blob/master/lib/system.js#L117
In traceur we have different code that passes the same tests.
The tests:
https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/blob/master/test/unit/runtime/System.js
We would map
On Aug 12, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Assume my script is http://example.com/test.js, and assume that there is
no extra information (nobody has registered any module names or anything
like that). If I do:
import a;
import ./a;
import /a;
import
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:
See the implemention in es6-module-loader:
https://github.com/ModuleLoader/es6-module-loader/blob/master/lib/system.js#L117
Ah, fascinating. So basically:
- normalize does relative URL logic based on the current base URL and
the referrer (i.e. the
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, David Herman wrote:
This is part of the design work we're actively working on. I'd ask you
to hold off until we have some more information for you. I'll keep you
posted -- we should have some more details for you soon.
Where is the design work happening? I'd love to be
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
So I'm trying to figure out how to spec the HTML spec's Loader.
One of the things that we're likely to add as part of this is a generic
dependency system. Authors have long asked to be able to do things like
define that their
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:
See the implemention in es6-module-loader:
https://github.com/ModuleLoader/es6-module-loader/blob/master/lib/system.js#L117
Ah, fascinating. So basically:
- normalize does
On Aug 12, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/12/14, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Since calling `Function.prototype.toString` with OBJECT as the this
value results in a TypeError, it appears that the OBJECT does not
implement [[Call]] and thus the only
Ah, fascinating. So basically:
- normalize does relative URL logic based on the current base URL and
the referrer (i.e. the URL of the script doing the importing).
- locate resolves that URL and adds .js (only if the last segment
is part of the path part of the URL and doesn't
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:
See the implemention in es6-module-loader:
https://github.com/ModuleLoader/es6-module-loader/blob/master/lib/system.js#L117
Ah,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:...
(only if the last segment is part of the path part of the URL and
doesn't contain a .?).
No such restriction is applied in our code.
Sure. What do we want for the default Web
On Aug 12, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, David Herman wrote:
This is part of the design work we're actively working on. I'd ask you
to hold off until we have some more information for you. I'll keep you
posted -- we should have some more details
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, David Herman wrote:
On Aug 12, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, David Herman wrote:
This is part of the design work we're actively working on. I'd ask
you to hold off until we have some more information for you. I'll
keep
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
One of the things that we're likely to add as part of this is a
generic dependency system. Authors have long asked to be able to do
things like define that their scripts depend on
symbol + '' must continue to throw.
I was suggesting that String(symbol) should not throw.
This can be spec'ed as String( value ) checking the Type of the value and
special case it in case of the value being a symbol.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 8/12/14, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Aug 12, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/12/14, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
[...]
| Function.prototype.toString
| ...
|
| The toString function is not generic; it throws a
| TypeError exception
On Aug 12, 2014, at 7:52 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/12/14, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Aug 12, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/12/14, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
[...]
| Function.prototype.toString
| ...
|
| The toString
43 matches
Mail list logo
