There is an English problem here:
Let existingProp be the resulting of calling the [[GetProperty]]
internal method of go with argument fn.
Can the spec be made easier to read?
--
Garrett
@xkit
ChordCycles.com
garretts.github.io
personx.tumblr.com
___
e
Kevin Smith wrote:
So what would the ideal Promise.resolve semantics do? I'm not sure,
maybe use SpeciesConstructor instead of [[PromiseConstructor]]?
This removes the wart in my view, has no less integrity. C. Scott?
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
>
> Domenic, Kevin: the concern about Reflect.construct seems misplaced, but
> in any event, the issue C. Scott raises wants addressing on its own. WDYT?
>
Yeah, sorry for dwelling on Reflect.construct so much (it's in my mind for
other reasons).
So what would the ideal Promise.resolve semantics
I missed it, thanks.I know things will improve in time but I'm just
coming from a discussion with folks complaining about the performance of
generators and GC overhead in real code with Chrome and Firefox relative to
simple hand written loops.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Bro
On Apr 28, 2015, at 4:21 PM, John Lenz wrote:
> You would hope that the engines might be able to create these objects on the
> stack but I don't think anyone does that yet and the result is a flood of
> eden objects.
>
> I would like to know I'm wrong about this.
>
did you see
https://esdisc
You would hope that the engines might be able to create these objects on
the stack but I don't think anyone does that yet and the result is a flood
of eden objects.
I would like to know I'm wrong about this.
On Apr 27, 2015 4:59 PM, "Allen Wirfs-Brock" wrote:
>
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Tab
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
It seems to me that this is an incomplete feature that should have
been dropped from the spec.
Seems like.
I apologize for not noticing this sooner.
No need -- thanks for finding it.
Domenic, Kevin: the concern about Reflect.construct seems misplaced, but
in any ev
On Apr 28, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
> What is the use case for third argument to Reflect.construct?
The primary use case is emulating the super() call semantics in a Proxy
construct trap handler.
Allen
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-d
>
> So, ES6 Promises reflect a specific set of design decisions, including a
> specific definition of "same type" that appears to exist solely for use by
> Promise.resolve. All that design guarantees is that the object has an
> certain specific internal slot whose value is tested in a specific way
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> So, ES6 Promises reflect a specific set of design decisions, including a
> specific definition of "same type" that appears to exist solely for use by
> Promise.resolve. All that design guarantees is that the object has an
> certain spec
On Apr 27, 2015, at 8:01 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> x = Reflect.construct(Promise, x, C);
>
> is another fine way to fool someone who wrote "C.resolve(x)" and expected to
> get an instance of C back.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I believe the ability to use an arbitrary
> newTarget parame
2015-04-28 5:01 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith :
> Looking over the Reflect namespace, I also see that Reflect.get and
> Reflect.set have been given powers not expressible with syntax: the
> receiver does not have to be a prototype parent of the target.
>
Did you mean "the receiver does not have to be a
Would `new Map(maps.reduce((e, m) => e.concat(Array.from(m)), []))` not
create a new Map from merging an array of `maps`? (It relies on the
`Map.prototype.[Symbol.iterator]` which is `Map#entries`, and the
`iterable` argument of the `Map` constructor)
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Andrea Giamma
> Le 26 avr. 2015 à 00:58, Kevin Smith a écrit :
>
> If we used "x.constructor" to determine the actual constructor, then someone
> could just change the "constructor" property for x and fool someone who wrote
> "C.resolve(x)" and expected to get an instance of C back.
Note that if you want t
Sorry Axel, I was rushing, it sounded over-rude ... so, yes, Map are better
for words, **but** in this specific case it was about all chars/surrogate
pairs, that's why I've said Objects where safe ... plus the rest, reduce
also is very handy for this exact kind of things ;-)
But yes, if it was a o
Moreover `undefined|0` is exactly 0. The `|0` is used in asm.js because it
explicitly declares the intent.
So again, no error in there ;-)
Regards
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now you read again the "exercise" and realize that's impo
Now you read again the "exercise" and realize that's impossible to have as
a piutfall ... no, I just used a KISS approach for what I can tell, no
pitfalls with one single surrogate could happen by specs.
Best Regards
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> With Maps, there ar
With Maps, there are less pitfalls. For example: what if you want to use your
version to count words and one of the words is `__proto__`? Most pitfalls can
be fixed via `Object.create(null)`, but Maps are more straightforward for data
(vs. code).
But your version can be easily adapted to Maps,
I agree this is not about the ES6 spec. But the answers helped because I was
trying to understand ES6’s arrow function that is similar to lambdas.
Thanks.
From: Andrea Giammarchi [mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:02 PM
To: Kevin Smith
Cc: Axel Rauschmayer; Rad
Not sure why everyone went for the `Map` version when in JS every object is
basically the equivalent of a `Map` already :-)
```js
let m = Array.from("mainn").reduce((m,k) => ((m[k] = 1 + (m[k] | 0)), m),
{});
```
looks a win to me, if you need to check or drop chars from the string I
would probab
Another option:
var map = new Map;
Array.from("mainn")
.map(c => c.toLowerCase())
.forEach(c => map.set(c, (map.get(c) | 0) + 1));
This kind of question is probably better left for StackOverflow, however.
___
es-discuss mailing list
The best I can come up with is a totally different, less functional approach:
```js
const s = 'mainn';
let map = new Map();
for (let ch of s) {
ch = ch.toLowerCase();
const prevCount = map.get(ch) || 0;
map.set(ch, prevCount+1);
}
```
> On 28 Apr 2015, at 10:52 ,
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
It could be something like this. But if this is done internall then we don't
need code to explicitly manipulate the Map.
let m = new Map();
m.set("x",1);
//set other keys
//for (let value of m.entries()){
//if (Object.keys(m).every((key) => m[key] == value[key])){
//Merge
//}
//
Hi,
I am using ES6 by transpiling. The features remind me of Java lambdas.
If I have a string 'mainn' then my map should contain this.
[a=1, i=1, m=1, n=2]
Java : Example. I may not need the TreeMap here.
String s = "__mainn__".replaceAll("[^a-z\\s]", "");
final Map count = s.chars().
24 matches
Mail list logo
