I agree completely, and I fully apologize. Starting the thread this way
was inappropriate, at least without some mitigating text which I did not
think to add. I like the fact that we are all civil to each other here and
try to keep the environment welcoming and friendly. Please no one take my
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
No, thank you.
+1
Email clients are the ultimate forum aggregators.
--scott
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
As a cross-cutting concern I'd like the feedback of more people on
https://github.com/benjamingr/RegExp.escape/issues/29
Basically we've got to make a design choice of readable output vs.
potentially safer output.
___
es-discuss mailing list
The first issue (in chronological order) with that proposal is the lack of
motivation. What is the problem that the proposal is trying to solve?
And since we are speaking of explosion of language complexity: It is good to
try to solve the problem with existing syntax, in order to judge if the
Hi.
I have never written a proposal before, but I would love if it was possible to
do the following in JavaScript:
```js
// This code exposes a function that when called bound to an `object` inserts a
method in that `object`.
// The following are 3 ways to do this, the last one being my
Some comments:
{ p1 as x, p2 } # o // { x: o.p1, p2: o.p2 }
Not sure why the `as` syntax since we already have `x : p1 ` syntax from
destructuring.
p # if o
This is really complicated syntax, especially given `if` is not an
expression.
{ a, b } @ [ 1, 2 ] // { a: 1, b: 2 }
A second
I'm with Scott. Regardless, this conversation is a non-starter.
I started it, because I care about es-discuss. More information would be nice
as to why it is a non-starter.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de
___
es-discuss
Why is this a comment on the RegExp.escape discussion?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Bob Myers r...@gol.com wrote:
I suspect this is beyond the capabilities of sweet, but haven't really
tried.
I think it's doable with sweet. You need to use infix macros which are a
bit more complicated than standard macros though.
Here's a first stab.
```
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de
wrote:
http://discourse.specifiction.org/t/upcoming-migration/805
Would it make sense to move es-discuss to that upcoming site? I’m not
particularly fond of mailing lists and much prefer forums, especially
discourse-based
Just to wrap this thread up, quoting myself from another thread:
In any case, I won't push my proposal anymore.
But for posterity sake, wanted to make one last comment as to why the various
suggestions for IIFE's and arrow expressions are inappropriate for the task:
they change (hijack)
Hey Kyle
True for `continue` and `break`, but maybe it’s about time we stop using these
archaic control structures anyway :)
As for `return` I don’t see what’s the problem if you return your value inside
the IIFE as well.
Regards
On Jun 20, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com
The main problem I have with mailing lists is that, unless I'm mistaken, I
cannot unsubscribe from specific threads. As an example, The Tragedy of
the Common Lisp, or, Why Large Languages Explode is now 33 replies deep
and I really don't care about it at all and would rather not get spammed by
I agree completely, and I fully apologize. Starting the thread this way was
inappropriate, at least without some mitigating text which I did not think
to add. I like the fact that we are all civil to each other here and try to
keep the environment welcoming and friendly. Please no one
There already exists a syntax for lexically bound functions, but couldn't
there be an unbound counterpart? I am aware I brought this up before, but
I'm still missing it with smaller methods that still need `this`. It's easy
to macro, but it feels weird to have a lexically bound lambda and not an
http://es-discourse.com already exists as an alternative place to discuss
things if one doesn't wish to email this list. It may be worth exploring
using that more fully before asking TC39 to consider an alternative to
their existing mailing list.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Eric B
While I am also concerned with the problem of ever-expanding
languages because the larger they grow, the harder they are to
learn, and the harder it is to read someone else's code which
uses unfamiliar features, there are other issues that are
equally important.
I find the most unappreciated
Quoting the specification at
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/index.html#sec-literals-regular-expression-literals
:
An implementation may extend the ECMAScript Regular Expression grammar
defined in 21.2.1, but it must not extend the RegularExpressionBody and
RegularExpressionFlags
ES'15 provides dedicated method syntax. What are your use cases that are
not covered by methods?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:13 PM Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
There already exists a syntax for lexically bound functions, but couldn't
there be an unbound counterpart? I am aware I
Hello,
I'm getting the impression that the next version of EcmaScript after
2015 (congratulations to that, by the way) will support quite advanced
numerical computations, with SIMD and all that. To complement that, I'd
wish for support for directed rounding. I'd like to have intrinsics to
perform
Dňa 20. júna 2015 19:31:18 CEST používateľ Erik Arvidsson
erik.arvids...@gmail.com napísal:
ES'15 provides dedicated method syntax. What are your use cases that
are
not covered by methods?
Or, ultimately, by function keyword. If I understand correctly, what you want
is arrowlike equivalent
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Bill Frantz fra...@pwpconsult.com wrote:
While I am also concerned with the problem of ever-expanding languages
because the larger they grow, the harder they are to learn, and the harder
it is to read someone else's code which uses unfamiliar features, there
22 matches
Mail list logo
