Re: Informative notes

> Regarding the general idea of motivation/introductory materials, I think the > new process explicitly encourages this, and indeed most new proposals include > that in their README or similar. Examples: > > - https://github.com/tc39/Array.prototype.includes/blob/master/README.md > - https://arv

Re: Rev32 ES6 draft now available

Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: Changes include: * Removed ‘new super()’ syntax * new.target meta-property no longer highlighted as tentative. * Methods defined within class definitions are now non-enumerable * Classes defined as class extends null {...} are now consider to be

Re: Rev32 ES6 draft now available

So much awesomeness in this revision, congratz TC39! /fm ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Rev32 ES6 draft now available

The Rev 32, Feb. 2, 2015 ES 6 draft is now available at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts#february_2_2015_draft_rev_32 This draft contains the last of the planned design changes for ES6. From this point forward all changes should be bug fixes. There are some k

RE: Informative notes

From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum > I think a centralised site similar to php's for holding all proposals > currently discussed as well as a place for people to leave comments or > directing them to this mailing list. Way ahead of

Re: Informative notes

This looks sweet Domenic! Especially things like https://github.com/tc39/Array.prototype.includes/blob/master/README.md It would be great it if were standardised and made more readable (the sidebar for example) On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > From: es-discuss [mailt

RE: Informative notes

From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich > Not bad -- we are using gists and github markdown but could build that up to > mimic the PHP structure and style a bit, if enough people find value in it. FYI the new hotness is Ecmarkup + Ecmarkdown as in e.g.

Re: Informative notes

> Not bad -- we are using gists and github markdown but could build that up to mimic the PHP structure and style a bit, if enough people find value in it. PHP's ircmaxell told me they're using WikiText - for example: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/combined-comparison-operator?do=edit&rev=0 It shouldn't

Re: Informative notes

Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum wrote: For example - I don't need to know or understand what `[[ReferenceGet]]` is to understand something written in this sort of style: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/combined-comparison-operator Not bad -- we are using gists and github markdown but could build that up

Re: The history about VariableStatement

Felix Kling wrote: That made me wonder why /VariableStatement/ was a /Statement/ to begin with? Maybe the concept of a "declaration" wasn't really developed back then, but then what was the reasoning for /FunctionDeclaration/ not being a /Statement/ (was it even part of ES1? I don't know) ?

Re: The history about VariableStatement

On 2015-02-02 09:46, Brendan Eich wrote: > That was simply for consonance with the other productions reached directly > from the Statement nonterminal. That is my actual question: Was there a specific reason to make it a /Statement/ as opposed to something similar like /FunctionDeclaration/,

Re: The history about VariableStatement

On Feb 2, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > I took Felix's question to be about grammar naming and factoring conventions, > not about `var` per se. > > Since ES1 (ECMA-262 Edition 1, E262.pdf on the ecma-international.org site), > the grammar called the nonterminal producing `var` decl

Re: The history about VariableStatement

Mark S. Miller wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Felix Kling > wrote: With ES6 having a production rule "Declaration" and ES5 having "FunctionDeclaration", I'm curious why a variable declaration (as we say), officially "VariableStatement", has not bee

Re: a weird yield* edge case

On Feb 2, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > I don’t think we should be assuming that an abnormal completion should run > anything like the same logic as a normal completion. If I understand > correctly, that’s what any proposal to fall back to “close” does. "close" exists to deal wit

RE: a weird yield* edge case

I don’t think we should be assuming that an abnormal completion should run anything like the same logic as a normal completion. If I understand correctly, that’s what any proposal to fall back to “close” does. From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Allen Wirfs-Bro

Re: a weird yield* edge case

On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Erik Arvidsson > wrote: > Another option would be to throw. Then the caller can tell that they did > something that was not expected by the inner iterator. > > > I agree. In fact, isn't this required by tr

Re: Informative notes

> Follow-up thought: people still link to the (completely outdated) proposals on the wiki, because they are often very readable. I think people mostly link to them because they are rank pretty well in search results and are confined to a single problem in a readable way. I think the way PHP manag

Re: Informative notes

Follow-up thought: people still link to the (completely outdated) proposals on the wiki, because they are often very readable. Is it conceivable to better maintain proposals for ES2016+ ? Or would that be too much work for the champions? > On 02 Feb 2015, at 19:50 , Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >

Informative notes

> On 22 Jan 2015, at 10:29 , Brendan Eich wrote: > > ECMA-357 (E4X) pioneered informative-first prose sections, not found in > ECMA-262 Ed. 3, and as a direct consequence, had too many imprecise or even > inaccurate informative notes, which (turns out) were misread as normative, or > simply ot

Re: Clarification regarding "top level" arrow functions and "this"/"arguments"

Thank you everyone for your input and explanation, I really appreciate it! I just wanted to say that I understand that those notes are not normative, however, I also think they are tremendously helpful for understanding more "complex" parts of the spec. I think they can be a gateway until one

Re: The history about VariableStatement

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Felix Kling wrote: > With ES6 having a production rule "Declaration" and ES5 having > "FunctionDeclaration", I'm curious why a variable declaration (as we say), > officially "VariableStatement", has not been originally defined as a > declaration (back then). > > Wo

The history about VariableStatement

With ES6 having a production rule "Declaration" and ES5 having "FunctionDeclaration", I'm curious why a variable declaration (as we say), officially "VariableStatement", has not been originally defined as a declaration (back then). Would you consider it to be a declaration today if we didn't n

Re: The enumerate trap and Object.create()

The bug has been filed: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3724 Thanks. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss