On 26 June 2015 at 04:08, Kevin Smith zenpars...@gmail.com wrote:
I think do expressions are go for ES7 but they need re-championing,
and implementation. I'll stir the pot.
I think Andreas was interested at some point?
Yes, I'm planning to prepare a proper spec for the September meeting.
I doubt this will be possible in a backwards compatible manner. With ES6,
we missed the opportunity to take more of a desugaring approach for new
features. As a consequence, there now is a fair amount of micro variation
between seemingly related features that is only describable in terms of
On 19 June 2015 at 23:04, 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 ones.
On 24 June 2015 at 22:56, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick question about function.sent:
As of ES6, there's this parallel between functions and generators:
// how to wrap a function
// f2 is equivalent to f, if f doesn't use `this`.
function f(...) { ... }
Why? What advantage would it offer?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:49 PM, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net
wrote:
And I'm suggesting that `RegExp.escape(str, /[image: ☺]/ug)` is a much
better idea.
--scott
___
es-discuss mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
For custom elements in DOM there's a proposal to have the constructor
be controlled by the user agent and have some kind of callback that
actually initiates the element. This has some advantage in that it
allows the
On Jun 27, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Safety over readability please. If there is a single fully escaped form that
is safe to use in all the expected contexts, let's choose that. The results
of RegExp.escape are not very readable anyway, and rarely read. So
compromising
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
But it's a good question. Maybe it's an indication that we should not
add function.sent?
We talked about this at the last meeting, though maybe you weren't there
(meeting notes header with people present and their 2 or 3LAs gets
copied forward a lot!). It doesn't seem
And I'm suggesting that `RegExp.escape(str, /[image: ☺]/ug)` is a much
better idea.
--scott
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
This is currently discussed at
https://github.com/benjamingr/RegExp.escape/issues/29#issuecomment-116789780
.
Adding my comment from there to here too:
Some languages (PHP for example) do this (optional parameter with
additional parameters) so it's not unprecedented.
The question we should ask
Please, not an iterable over characters. (Or at least, not only.) Use a
RegExp. Imagine trying to ensure that any characters over \u007f were
escaped. You don't want an iterable over ~64k characters.
In addition, a RegExp would allow you to concisely specify hex digits, but
only at the start
I meant something like `RegExp.escape(str, ☺)` (also escapes `☺`). Since
strings are iterable by code points via the new iteration protocol this
sounds like the natural choice. I'm not sure such a second argument would
be a good idea.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:42 PM, C. Scott Ananian
12 matches
Mail list logo
