> Jon: yes, it might be a redundant error, I will investigate more.
>
> /caridy
Module Records other than Source Text Module Records could return `null` when
calling
ResolveExport() in GetModuleNamespace(). The specification of the abstract
ResolveExport() method
does not forbid this case.
A fix for this would be in 8.1.1.4.5, insert between the current steps 4 and
5:
4.5 If S is true, then
a. Let stillHasBinding be ObjRec.HasBinding(N).
b. ReturnIfAbrupt(stillHasBinding).
c. If stillHasBinding is false, throw a ReferenceError exception.
I
On May 14, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Jones wrote:
Ah, thanks for explaining! What about the Temporal Dead Zone of let, or const binding semantics,
for those of us who are obsessive enough to desire that kind of thing everywhere?
ES6 specifies that function declarations are allowed in
Question: what does the following code snippet log in the last line?
```js
function* gen() {
yield this;
}
let genObj = new gen();
let [_this] = genObj;
console.log(_this === genObj); // ???
```
I’m finding three answers:
1. The spec says [1] that any reference to `this` in a generator
From my current understanding (based on other threads), this module:
```js
var foo = 42;
export default foo;
export foo;
foo = 10;
I guess you'd intended to write `export {foo as default}` instead of `export default foo`, because
the latter exports the value of the expression when it gets
On 1/28/2015 2:51 PM, André Bargull wrote:
For a reference, here's how Java (tried w/ Oracle 1.8.0_31 and openjdk
1.7.0_65) Pattern.UNICODE_CHARACTER_CLASS works:
foo\uD834bar and foo\uDC00bar match ^foo[^a]bar$ and ^foo.bar$, so,
generally, lonely surrogates match /./.
Backreferences
For a reference, here's how Java (tried w/ Oracle 1.8.0_31 and openjdk
1.7.0_65) Pattern.UNICODE_CHARACTER_CLASS works:
foo\uD834bar and foo\uDC00bar match ^foo[^a]bar$ and ^foo.bar$, so,
generally, lonely surrogates match /./.
Backreferences are allowed to consume the leading surrogate of a
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Marja Hölttä marja at chromium.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss wrote:
/ The ES6 unicode regexp spec is not very clear regarding what should happen
// if the regexp or the matched string contains lonely surrogates (a lead
// surrogate
);
---
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:11 PM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu
mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
On 1/28/2015 2:51 PM, André Bargull wrote:
For a reference, here's how Java (tried w/ Oracle 1.8.0_31 and
openjdk
1.7.0_65
Cool, thanks for clarifications!
To make sure, as per the intended semantics, we never allow splitting a
valid surrogate pair (= matching only one of the surrogates but not the
other), and thus we'll differ from the Java implementation here:
/foo(.+)bar\1/u.test(foo\uD834bar\uD834\uDC00); we
On 10/27/2014 5:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Oct 26, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Arguably a design bug, rather than a spec. bug. But I'm assuming that who ever
originally wrote up these algorithms were being intentional about such things.
Design,
Unlikely, given what Adam reported:
V8 properly throws a range error, but fails to move the element up one
index.
SpiderMonkey hangs (presumably because it has no special logic to deal
with very large, sparse arrays).
JSC throws an Out of memory Error and also fails to move the element
up one
/ Seems to me like it's just a matter of wrapping the relevant bits (which
ones, though?
// whatever constitutes the loop body
//
// OK. That's fairly straightforward.
//
// You also will need a finally clause, if the loop body contains any explicit returns.
//
// It only does when
Hello,
We found one dead part in ES5 and we're wondering whether we're missing
something here. The question is about the 4th step in Section 10.2.1.2.4
GetBindingValue(N, S):
10.2.1.2.4 GetBindingValue(N,S)
The concrete Environment Record method GetBindingValue for object environment
Claude Pache wrote:
/ Personally, I use the following expression in order to coerce a variable to
a string:
//
// var obj = this + ''
//
// and its in-place variant:
//
// x += ''
//
// I think it'll continue to work in ES6.
/
Agreed, this is the correct-and-most-concise way
Because somebody thought it was a good idea ;-) ...
I'd say for consistency with other constant value properties (NaN,
Infinity, undefined, Math.*, Number.*).
On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
/ Is this meant to prevent people tampering with them?
//
// In that case,
Moreover, the Completion record (either normal or abrupt) returned
from [[Call]] will hold an additional [[thisValue]] field,
which, unless otherwise specified:
* is set to the original `thisArgument` if it was not empty; or,
* is set to the value (at the time of completion) of the
The most important thing here (I agree with Andreas R.) is -- if
possible -- avoiding uninitialized object observability.
I agree that uninitialized observability is a pain and has been a
on-going source
of reentrancy bugs in the the more complex built-in constructors. I
want to
explore
One question about @@create though... What would this do:
function Foo () {}
Foo.prototype[Symbol.create] = null;
// ???
// Maybe error out, like currently host objects without [[Construct]]:
// TypeError: Foo is not a constructor.
new Foo();
- Jussi
```javascript
function Foo(){}
Thanks for the notes, Ben! Looks like a real slog but it's much
appreciated.
On Wed 11 Jun 2014 18:28, Ben Newman benjamin at cs.stanford.edu
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss writes:
/ ## Async Generator Functions (Jafar presenting)
// (Jafar to send slides)
/
Looking forward
I'd be most interested in seeing if we can remove IsConstructor entirely (except
for uses where it's just a guard, implementing the semantics of `new` via
IsConstructor - [[Construct]] or throw).
It seems like there's at least some movement toward removing it from `Array.of`
and `Array.from`.
On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Till Schneidereit wrote:
/ While working on changing Date.prototype to be a plain object in
SpiderMonkey, we realized that there's an issue: the way things are specced now,
`alert(Date.prototype)` will throw, because `Date.prototype.toString` isn't
generic. The
On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
/ Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
value in for-of loops.
//
// The following test passes using the spec algorithms:
//
// var c = 0;
// for (var x of null) {
//c++;
// }
// assert.equal(c,
Corrected link: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2737
On 6/13/2014 12:16 AM, André Bargull wrote:
On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
/ Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
value in for-of loops.
//
// The following test
[*] Proxies are oddballs here. All Proxies have a [[Construct]] method so
the IsConstructor will always return true which is really not what you
want. If IsConstructor was changed to check for a .prototype instead
proxies would behave more inline with ordinary objects.
[[Construct]] is only
Quick note: that isConstructor isn't really viable unless you plan on using
it with constructors that do not have side effects.
Rick
The Proxy-based solution needs to be used in these cases. Now we just
need to wait until Proxies are available everywhere! ;-)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at
On 6/11/2014 5:40 PM, Alexandre Morgaut wrote:
On 11 juin 2014, at 17:11, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
Quick note: that isConstructor isn't really viable unless you plan on using
it with constructors that do not have side effects.
Rick
The Proxy-based solution needs
that `has:()=true` breaks with features detections that are meant to be
less obtrusive than getters ... i.e. `'geolocation' in navigator` or
`'innerHTML' in genericNode` and all others that are not supposed to pass
through a potentially expensive getter to retrieve a feature detection
purpose
Or a link to the discussion that led to the content of this section?
There have been multiple discussions on this topic, on both es-discuss
and during TC39 meetings, so it's hard to point to a single discussion.
For example:
Apparently, there has been a semantic change between ES5 and ES6
regarding assignment to wrapper objects in strict mode. That is,
'use strict'; .x = 0
would throw in ES5, but AFAICS, no longer does in ES6. Was this change
discussed? What is the rationale?
(FWIW, current implementations
On 5/28/2014 2:00 PM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 28 May 2014 13:41, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
Apparently, there has been a semantic change between ES5 and ES6
regarding assignment to wrapper objects in strict mode. That is,
'use strict'; .x = 0
would throw in ES5
On May 1, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendorff at gmail.com
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss wrote:
/
// As specified, proxies can do this:
//
// js Object.isFrozen(proxy)
// true
// js Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(proxy).configurable
// true
/
No,
Where do you find the spec incomplete WRT @@unscopable. My recollection was
that it was all resolved and fully specified and that I was relatively happy
with the outcome.
unscopables for the Object Environment Record is always the empty list.
It's never populated.
Allen
On May 1,
The changes from https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1908 never
made it into the spec.
On 4/30/2014 11:41 PM, André Bargull wrote:
Where do you find the spec incomplete WRT @@unscopable. My recollection was
that it was all resolved and fully specified and that I was relatively happy
Hi Erop,
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:35 PM, termi1uc1 at gmail.com
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss wrote:
/ 1. Should the AssignmentExpression of DestructuringAssignment always to be
// the Object type?
// ```javascript
// let {length} = 123;
// assert(length,
On 4/11/2014 2:02 PM, Егор Николаев wrote:
@André Bargull
Are there any reasons for these restrictions? It confuses me. If I can
for-of over string, so why can't I destructuring it?
I'd say it's mostly a language designer decision and it may still change
before the final specification
I would rephrase into this:
if you need a getOwnPropertyNames trap, you might need for consistency a
getOwnPropertySymbols independently from getOwnPropertyDescriptors since
these methods are already available.
While it shares the same name with Object.getOwnPropertyNames(), this
On 3/6/2014 10:24 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
André Bargull mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu
March 6, 2014 at 1:21 PM
I would rephrase into this:
if you need a getOwnPropertyNames trap, you might need for consistency a
getOwnPropertySymbols independently from getOwnPropertyDescriptors since
Object.isFrozen().
Please let me know and I'll update.
Best Regards
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:21 PM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu
mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
I would rephrase into this:
if you need a getOwnPropertyNames trap, you might need
On 2/14/2014 11:40 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
I think Scott is requesting this change:
https://gist.github.com/anba/6c75c34c72d4ffaa8de7
Yes, although my proposed diff (in the linked bug) was the shorter,
12. If end
On 30/01/2014, at 17:13, Brendan Eich wrote:
/
//
// Interesting!
//
// You don't want the alert to show undefined, so the extent of the inner binding in your model is the unbraced consequent of the if.
//
// That is not block scope in any plain sense.
/
How about this?
let x= 0;
if
On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:46 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
/ For reference:https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2546
//
// `Array#copyWithin` has a (non-normative) signature of `(target, start,
// end = this.length)`. However, this is slightly misleading because the
// spec actually
Thanks for the reply.
I'd actually expect `undefined` because function declarations does not
return anything. Converting it to a function expression kind of misses the
point since those are well... expressions :)
I've tried looking in all the relevant places in the spec but still
couldn't
On 11/26/2013 02:28 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
/ From the thread [1], I guess that parsing correctly the following thing
would be obnoxious (at best)?
//
// (a = yield/b/g) =* {}
//
// ---Claude
/
Indeed.
And you can make even more obnoxious parses of the hypothetical combination of
On 11/27/2013 12:07 AM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
On 11/26/2013 03:00 PM, André Bargull wrote:
On 11/26/2013 02:28 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
/ From the thread [1], I guess that parsing correctly the
following thing would be obnoxious (at best)?
//
// (a = yield/b/g) =* {}
//
// —Claude
Got it, thanks. We could indeed do .+, .*, etc. without ambiguity.
(Ignore E4X's wildcards: xml.* etc.!)
/be
No. ;-)
js 1.*2
2
- André
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 10/29/2013 7:51 PM, Tristan Zajonc wrote:
Right you are. That was the same issue with Python. Are there any
blockers to ~*?
There are the usual ASI problems. For example this is currently valid:
```
a
~+ b
```
It is parsed as:
```
a;
~+ b;
```
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:46 AM, André
Traceur has:
function assign(target, source) {
var props = $getOwnPropertyNames(source);
var p, length = props.length;
for (p = 0; p length; p++) {
target[props[p]] = source[props[p]];
}
return target;
}
Which is correct.
Almost correct ;-)
Exception handling and
} and Object.seal/freeze. This
was also covered in the thread starting at
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-December/027067.html .
- André
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:41 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu
mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
...
A more conformant implementation
/ I disagree. In those situations you should just iterate over the string
using `for...of`.
/
That seems to iterate over code units as far as I can tell.
for (var x of ?)
print(x.charCodeAt(0))
invokes print() twice in Gecko.
SpiderMonkey does not implement the (yet to be) spec'ed
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using require('harmony-reflect')
var t = {a:3, c:4};
var p = Proxy(
t,
{
get: function() {},
delete: function(t,x) {
console.log('deleting');
delete t.a;
}
}
);
delete p.c
p; //{a:3}
t; //{a:3}
the console.log is not
On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
/
// On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
//
// Array.from( '???'))[1]
//
// maybe even better:
//
// Uint32Array.from( '???'))[1]
/
err...maybe not if you want a string value:
Object.mixin, why just for enumerables (?)
It's a copy-paste error in the draft:
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999#c1
This is related to:
http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/Object-define-Object-mixin-tp265638p265651.html
In a spec we have both Object.assign and
/ Brandon Benvie mailto:bbenvie at mozilla.com
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
// September 30, 2013 8:48 PM
// I'm actually now really curious what the following does:
//
// ```
// function foo(x, y = (() = { arguments[0] = foo; return bar })()) {
//return [x, y];
// }
/
Could someone give it a nudge?
-Michael
Per #it on irc.mozilla.org scl3 is down, apparently some maintenance
work per user Usul. So not only bugs.ecmascript.org.
- André
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On 9/29/2013 7:51 PM, André Bargull wrote:
Could someone give it a nudge?
-Michael
Per #it on irc.mozilla.org scl3 is down, apparently some maintenance
work per user Usul. So not only bugs.ecmascript.org.
- André
(10:51:27) wicked: how long will it take?
(10:51:45) digi: wicked: just
/ Whether you personally use it, for-in is a reality. Introspection of
// objects happens, so if you ship a library that's putting meta-level
// properties into objects it needs to make them non-enumerable to be robust
// in the face of client code that uses for-in but isn't prepared to
//
On 9/27/2013 9:58 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
In this case I doubt @iterator or @toStringTag should be visible.
(And I know there a better ways to test for empty objects, but
for-in testing is common enough...)
Thanks Andre! I fear this example merely begs the question of whether
such
Short summary:
The current (rev18) [[Invoke]] design allows this code to work (use case A):
js```
var p = new Proxy(new Map, {});
// Map.prototype.get is not generic, requires proper Map instance
p.get(key);
```
But it does not allow to use (use case B):
js```
var p = new Proxy(new Map, {});
On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
/ On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc.be at gmail.com
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss wrote:
// [forking from [[invoke]]-thread for clarity]
//
// Thanks!
//
// Allen: would the removal of the hasOwn()
Back to option 2: Redesign [[Invoke]] from
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-August/032718.html ?
- André
What if we made invoke take either an identifier to call, or a got
function to call? Then get+invoke would pass the got function.
/be
Allen Wirfs-Brock
The NoIn grammar productions have been removed in rev17. Does this mean
that `for (a in b;;);` is now a valid (C-style) for-loop instead of a
SyntaxError?
Thanks,
André
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
This test case [1] from SpiderMonkey failed when I applied the latest
spec changes to my ES6 test implementation. Based on the bug report at
[2], this might be another web-compatibility issue - but is that really
the case? Any input appreciated!
Thanks,
André
[1]
`g.next()` returns `{value: [1, 2, 3], done: false}` for me, so .value
is needed here. Or do you mean something else?
Thanks,
André
No .value anywhere, though.
/be
Forbes Lindesay wrote:
/ It already is dealt with via destructuring assignments:
//
// ```js
// function* gen() {
// var
On 19 August 2013 19:02, Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at wirfs-brock.com
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss wrote:
/
// On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
//
// While debugging a V8 issue I just realised another incompatibility
// with introducing lexical function
Hi,
Section 15.19.3.3 of the July 15 draft says:
Properties of the GeneratorFunction Prototype Object
The GeneratorFunction prototype object is an ordinary object. It is
not a function object and does not have a [[Code]] internal data
property or any other of the internal
/ * ArrayBuffer.isView
// yup. The use cases for isView aren't all that clear to me. It could be
// expressed a @@isView test if it has important use cases.
/
I'm not familiar enough with ArrayBuffers to understand the consequences.
By analogy with Array.isArray, if a proxy-for-arraybuffer
Looking at the ES6 spec draft, I've drawn the following conclusions
about Completion Records. Can someone confirm?
If [[type]] is 'normal', 'return', or 'throw',
[[target]] must be 'empty' (can't be an identifier).
Moreover, if [[type]] is 'return' or 'throw',
[[value]] must be a
Allen (cc-ed) changed symbols back to objects in draft rev 16
(https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1546#c2), so I guess
Object(x) will still work in ES6 to test for object types.
- André
I see. That's unpleasant. In ES5, Object(x) can never throw, and so the
code paths using |x ===
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Zbigniew Braniecki zbraniecki at mozilla.com
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
/ wrote:
[...]
//
/1) CanonicalizeLanguageTag [1]
/
// Because language tags come from developers and users, ability to
// canonicalize them is crucial to us. ECMA 402
On 7/13/2013 8:48 PM, Andy Earnshaw wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu
mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
...
Only exposing CanonicalizeLanguageTag does not seem useful to me
without having access to IsStructurallyValidLanguageTag. Most
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk
news at terrainformatica.com https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
wrote:
/ Did we consider green gases emission increase that will happen due to that
// double parsing of code that currently is parsed strictly once?
//
// ( Consider
@@create allows you to set up instance prototypes, here's an amended
version of your example code using ES6 classes:
https://gist.github.com/anba/9f0acbb29bf755d26f37
The updated version also gets rid of the origProto workaround, but
requires a custom @@hasInstance hook. I've tested the
Just for the record:
Prototype lookup in ClassDefinitionEvaluation changed in draft rev. 14.,
so an API function should rather look like:
Mixin = (base, ...mixins) = mixins.reduce(Object.mixin, class extends
base {}.prototype).constructor
At least users now no longer need to access
The sentinel cannot carry a return value, from the notes:
DH: Mark's proposal is broken, because it doesn't work with return
values of generators.
MM: Agreed.
In the TC39 meeting notes, Mark suggested something similar (but more
sophisticated) which was rejected and I am wondering why.
);
[1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:generators#returning
On 5/14/2013 1:32 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Thanks! Can you elaborate?
On May 14, 2013, at 9:20 , André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu
mailto:andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
The sentinel cannot carry a return value, from
SpiderMonkey at least goes out of its way to do [[Set]] (let's call it)
not [[DefineOwnProperty]] for 'o = {__proto__: 42}', so why wouldn't
[[Set]] create a fresh property, seeing nothing on Object.prototype
named '__proto__' with a setter to run?
SpiderMonkey/JSC currently just use [[Set]]
Statements and Declarations are separate production rules (cf. 12
Statements and Declarations in the draft), only a Statement can be
nested directly within an if-Statement.
- André
Hi,
I've noted that it is a Syntax error to write things like `if (foo) let x;` or
`while (bar) let x;`
It improved a bit, I've just added a new bug and the loading time was
only one minute instead of two minutes.
- André
On 4/12/2013 3:21 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I heard some db cleaning was just done -- any improvements?
/be
André Bargull wrote:
A bit off topic:
bugs.ecmascript.org
A bit off topic:
bugs.ecmascript.org is extremely slow today, when I file a new issue,
the browser loads for about two minutes. And I even got multiple
mid-air collision detection errors for my own (!) changes. Maybe
someone can take a look and figure out what's going on there. (The
search
/ The most significant change from the meeting (and it really wasn't
// explicit on the whiteboard) is that generator prototypes don't have a
// constructor property that links back to its generator function instance.
// In other words, you can't say:
//
// function * ofCollection() {for (i
The function for use case #1 seems to be Object.getOwnPropertyKeys()
[15.2.3.15]:
js Object.keys(Array)
[]
js Object.getOwnPropertyNames(Array)
[length,name,prototype,isArray,of,from,caller,arguments]
js [for (x of Object.getOwnPropertyKeys(Array)) x]
On March 30, I'll hold a talk on ECMAScript 6 at CodeFest 2013 in Novosibirsk
[1] where I hope to convince people that they have something to look forward to.
A draft of my slides is here, feedback welcome:
http://dl.2ality.com/codefest_es6.pdf
[1]http://2013.codefest.ru/
--
Dr. Axel
The incompatibility you've noticed is just a spec bug in
[[HasIntegrity]]. In step 2a of 8.3.3, the value of [[Extensible]] needs
to be inverted. With that change applied, the code snippet will return
`true`.
- André
Thanks for your answer, then I'm looking forward to the meeting results.
- André
PS: Here's another difference, /^\$/ matches \0 in SM, JSC and
Opera, whereas in IE10 and V8 it matches \u0 (that's \0
concat'ed with 0). Per [2] it ought to be \u0.
On 3/16/2012 2:05 AM, Luke
Although not specified in ES5, octal escapes are required in regular
expressions for web reality [1,2]. [1] even claims the extensions are
extensive and consistent across browsers. But for invalid octal
escapes, the browsers are not consistent. For example:
/^\8$/ matches \\8 in Spidermonkey,
Log-in at [1] and remove the option to send a monthly password remainder?
*Get password reminder email for this list?*
Once a month, you will get an email containing a password reminder for
every list at this host to which you are subscribed. You can turn this
off on a per-list basis by
Just for the record, here's a link to the bug report on bugzilla
concerning ASI for do-while:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=238945
(Interesting that I came across the very same issue in January while
working on the OpenLaszlo parser code :-)
FWIW, JavaScriptCore provides
My example:
x = x * x
^(a,b,c,d,e,f,g)
{
x
}
is not a syntax error, but it also (unfortunately) doesn't contain a
lambda expression. Or am I missing something?
Or a bit more obvious than the use of the comma-operator:
As soon as named lambdas are introduced (the weak spot on the \
89 matches
Mail list logo
