hod and
record it as `here` (the object containing the method making a
super-reference). Hence, my solution can handle “holes” in the prototype chain,
Ashkenas’ solution can’t.
But I would not want to use that solution, a static approach is much more
elegant.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rau
It’s not a big deal, just an illustration of Allen’s work.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 15:34 , Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
> On 15.11.2011 18:02, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>> FWIW: I’ve created a gist that demonstrates static super references (in the
>> manner that Allen proposes them
esting “of” (prototype `proto` *of* object
`obj`), but I think that has been rejected before (and is taken by the for
loop).
obj of { foo: 12 } of { bar: 13 } of { baz: 17 }
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
__
t into ES.next,
but it could inform decisions. Such a library is such a core element of a
programming language that we should have a good one as soon as possible. The
same holds for other utility functionality (IMHO, ES.next is still too frugal
in this department).
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rausc
ng reused. So there shouldn’t be any surprise that it looks
like many things that we have seen already.
“Once again” also sounds impolite, but maybe that’s just me.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rausch
the symbol `with` is being reused. So there shouldn’t be any surprise that it
> looks like many things that we have seen already.
I’m might be wrong about that, though, but using <| in the extended manner that
he shows has been proposed before.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma
[cc-ing es-discuss again]
On Nov 17, 2011, at 14:20 , Russell Leggett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>>>obj with { foo: 12 } with { bar: 13 } with { baz: 17 }
>
> I like the idea! As it is syntactically different in this role, errors sh
p RTL. JS is built around English, so LTR seems more
> appropriate (with all due sympathy to our Hebrew-speaking programmers!).
Going from
P <--has-prototype-- o
to
P --has-instance--> o
is fine with me, but it’s not the directionality of [[Prototype]].
--
Dr. Axel Raus
rable, foo, bar) { ... }
>
> I'm not sure what the semantics of this would be. Are you inventing
> multiple-prototype inheritance? That's not going to happen.
Single inheritance, a prototype chain composed from the given objects, in the
given order. An infix operator is
ly be properly expressed by something
grawlixy, so it might be a moot point.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
o get behind it. I still have a fondness for mine,
> which is used purely for defining classes, but for most cases, his would work
> equally well in the ways I would want to use it.
>
> - Russ
> ___
> es-d
e same thing):
http://www.mail-archive.com/es-discuss@mozilla.org/msg11194.html
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
; people who want to use it.
>
> Optional: Change the value of `this` to be the outer function `this` in
> non-strict mode (breaking a large amount of code. I don't think we can get
> away with that).
> __
oto__ (or Object.create() or Self-ish) manner and then get to
constructors. Then I talk about the constructor’s prototype to avoid the
longish “the value of the prototype property of the constructor”. But that’s
confusing! It’ll get worse should constructors become prototypes of each other
in the fu
ars,
but there are many similarities. I haven’t found a “lessons learned” document,
though.
I can even imagine class declarations being used as syntactic sugar for object
exemplars.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_
terested in what
> is essentially a bikesheding questions: is this a direction that we shoud
> consider?
I like the idea of replacing the method name “constructor” with something
better, but “new” suggests instantiation *and* initialization to me. Is “init”
a possi
th,
people (and I don’t exclude myself from that category ;-) simply won’t read it.
Or only if they are deeply interested (which one can’t always expect them to
be).
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_
the
problem. If not, can I read up on what the problem is?
Thanks!
Axel
On Nov 19, 2011, at 19:33 , Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> I like the idea of replacing the method name “constructor” with
Point = class {
x: 0, //not really needed unless defining an object exemplar
y: 0,
new(x,y) {
this.x = x;
this.y=y;
}
};
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
ew' instead.
That’s what I missed. But wouldn’t that change Allen’s `class` operator to
something that performs David’s desugaring as a tranformation (from something
that simply returns the value of property `constructor`)?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
tw
ill indeed have the
same size/cardinality-related property as collections.
The negative example is Java, where you have length, length(), size() and many
other things. JavaScript is still fairly uniform, with the DOM being the
exception.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
ho
On Nov 24, 2011, at 16:37 , David Bruant wrote:
>>> We should probably consider using the names 'deleteProperty' and 'construct'
>>> instead.
> So this sounds like a good idea to work around the issue.
Other possibility – a prefix: op_delete, o
, ...) from working.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
, but it’s probably too late
for that, because this approach has become standard.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https
e = new Person("Jane");
var Employee = Person <| { ... };
I don’t think one would make the mistake of extending jane. Ironically, a
class-based mindset works well here and does not lead you astray.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.
xemplars still holds: JavaScript inheritance would be simpler
if a class declaration desugared to a prototype (instead of a constructor). [I
am ignoring backward compatibility which is a big thing to ignore.] Sect. 3 of
[1] argues that point and gives several code examples.
[1] http://www.2ality.co
have object exemplar semantics?
=> Easier to detect via static analysis.
=> Can forbid non-method properties in prototypes.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss maili
> Sorry I don't understand the question, or how it is related to my
> quest.
I would argue that your quest can be fulfilled by class declarations that
desugar to object exemplars. Do you agree?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/ra
about object
> exemplars?
Because a class declaration will desugar to something. And desugaring to an
object exemplar is more elegant than desugaring to a function exemplar.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.c
?
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
, 1/n);
>>}
>>
>>function log_b(b, x) {
>>return Math.log(x) / Math.log(b);
>> }
>>
>> Have they been considered and rejected?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.co
/10/08/what-is-a-polyfill/
>
> ...I still don't understand how it differs from "shim"
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
e
I would love to have something like Python’s locals():
http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/functions.html#locals
It would not allow modifications, but it would still be very useful.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
Is there a list somewhere of ECMAScript.next features that have already been
implemented in Firefox?
Thanks!
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
twitter.com/rauschma
Home: rauschma.de
Blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es
are enabled
> through the harmony flag? ( http://codereview.chromium.org/9008031 )
>
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> Is there a list somewhere of ECMAScript.next features that have already been
> implemented in Firefox?
>
> Thanks!
>
> A
in neither case?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
? define
: function(A,F) { module.exports = F.apply(null, A.map(require)) } }).
define([ "./module1", "./module2" ],
function (module1, module2) {
return ...
}
);
[1] http://www.2ality.com/2011/11/module-gap.html
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a.
};
}
);
Hence, unless you add to `exports`, Node.js won’t see your module’s
contributions.
IIRC, Node.js deviates from CJS in that module.exports is an alias for exports.
Without that alias, the boilerplate would be more complicated (you’d have to
copy the properties of the object
iting
> <http://es-lab.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/ses/explicit.html> in a modern
> browser. If you see the line "AMD loader test...succeeded", then it did.
As an aside, one benefit of the above boilerplate is that it is just a prefix
(easier to copy and paste than solutions
lp test drive a
> define() implementation that could be integrated into Node later, and
> by having Node packages use the module, it would give Node committers
> a way to scan the package.json info to find out if define() use is
> used enough to warrant consideration in their cor
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets
Currently, using Object.is() is hard-coded. But one could allow a comparator
function being handed in (with Object.is being the default).
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com
arise in real systems? As
> observed at
> <http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Docs/thread?tid=0cd4a00bd4aef9e4>,
> until recently, on all non-IE browsers, if you typed "__proto__" at the
> beginning of a new Google Doc, your Google Doc would hang. This wa
On Dec 28, 2011, at 17:13 , John J Barton wrote:
> Doesn't Object.keys() solve this problem?
For getting elements, yes. For setting, the problem with the illegal own
property name "__proto__" remains.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: tw
) fails to avoid this platform on all
> non-IE browsers.)
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
.uk/~mas01cr/papers/ilc2007/sequences-20070301.pdf
- Programming languages with collection APIs (among many others): Smalltalk,
Java
- Guava
http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.co
to standardize simple guard methods now, for example:
function foo(x) {
Object.guard(x, Number);
}
Advantages: Helps tools (to infer types, to generate documentation), can later
be refactored to real guards.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter
behavior in the face of comparator
> misbehavior seems hard, and
> 3) we'd like to avoid yet more under-specification. The similar
> under-specification of Array.prototype.sort is already bad enough.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> http://wik
It’d be nice if stack traces were standardized. Are there any plans to do so?
The following project could be used for shims:
http://stacktracejs.org/
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
e system is much closer to JavaScript + minimal type guards
than I initially thought. That’s a part of it I really like.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
proposal covers this (pun might be intended)
>
> window.foo = function() {
> console.log("hi!");
> };
>
> window.addEventListener('load', {||
> this.foo(); // "hi!"
> }, false);
>
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_l
ere might be some additional insights in what the Lispers are
doing. This is more of a hunch than actual knowledge of mine – I simply like
their way of thinking about object-orientation.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_
thods non enumerable):
> http://jsfiddle.net/xavierm02/exwtg/
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
ly depriving programmers of ES6
> goodies such as destructuring or spread/rest.
I’m not entirely sure, but introducing two new dialects (ES5.5 and ES6, if you
will) at the same time seems problematic. It might be easier to stick to the
simpler rule of “global = ES5”.
Apart from that: sold.
--
Dr. A
mented as functions (and be brought to
ES5 via shims). A function such the #5 getTypeName() could take care of use
case #4, as well.
Ideas for getTypeName(): http://www.2ality.com/2011/11/improving-typeof.html
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: r
)?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
odule) } }). // Node.js
define(function (require, exports, module) {
// Node.js module code goes here
});
Alternative: wrap a function around define(), make define a parameter, perform
the (same!) check when immediately-invoking the function.
--
Dr.
preferred, one could give it a name such as
`exists`. Furthermore, it might be more consistent with
value ?? default
to make ?? a postfix operator, but I can’t judge the grammatical implications
of that.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitt
// false
console.log(exists undefined); // false
console.log(exists null); // false
var obj = {};
console.log(exists obj.prop); // false
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
for reasons of symmetry to me, a variable having been
declared is the same as a property existing. JavaScript differs from most
languages in that it doesn’t report an error when a non-existant property is
accessed.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/ra
{
...
}
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
ined as acting the same way as the following code:
>
> String.prototype.until = function (needle) {
> return this.substr(0, this.indexOf(needle));
> }
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
nd last name), you could
> easily call name.until(' ') and get that back.
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:55, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>> Isn’t that usually better handled via a regular expression?
>>
>> One of the use cases for quasis [1][2] is to make it easy to
= len * times;
for(var i = 0; i < resultLen; i++) {
result.push(this[i % len]);
}
return result;
}
In use:
$ [1,2,3].repeat(3)
[ 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 ]
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.
&& x !== null
The expression would not throw an exception if x hasn’t been declared.
The two most important use cases for typeof probably are:
- isDefined
- Helping to implement getTypeName() whose results are
- "null", "
statement). Then the thing to add to the proposal would be ??
used as a unary postfix operator:
if (x??) ...
Prefix might work, too.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
P.S. Are CoffeeScript's `func? arg` and `obj?.prop` too extreme?
The former is part of Crockford’s proposal [1]. The latter is very useful
indeed.
[1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
hom
ure how many use cases there are (suggestions welcome), but it
does fill a hole (IIRC, Python has something similar).
TODO: This method probably makes more sense as an iterator (e.g. implemented
via a generator). Then one could even omit the upper limit and produce an
unlimited sequence.
[1] http://wi
4
Array.range({ step: 3 }) -> 0, 3, 6, 9, ...
Array.range({ start: -2, step: -1 }) -> -2, -3, -4, -5, ...
etc.
The defaults of start and end and the comparison operator depend on the sign of
step.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com
) -> 5, 3, 1
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>> I think it's fairly common for range implementations to provide an optional
>> `step` parameter
>>
>>
>> Good point. Maybe all of these parameters should be options:
>>
r
server-side or client-side, possibly including caching)? This multi-version
scheme could even be applied to (the JS code embedded in) HTML files.
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_
use strict; // causes an early error on old browsers.
>
> Had we adopting it into ES5, it would have this meaning clearly. It may still
> be a good idea, but consider the new complexity. Now the second form also
> causes an early error on old ES5 browsers, where the script might ot
ses
are equal (which I think is carried over to data structures), but not the same
reference.
It’s a shame that we are really close in JavaScript, with the ECMA-262
specification using references.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.
> that would not solve much 'cause you can bind a function to a single object
> and no more.
Isn’t that the most frequent use case? Do you have examples where you bind the
same function to several objects?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter:
ges such as Java, JavaScript additionally faces the challenge
that a developer can’t control what language version is implemented by the
browser. How will that be handled? Sketching a solution would provide a more
complete picture of how to migrate to ES6.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@r
t going into ES.next is diverse (E,
Racket, Smalltalk, etc.). Lastly, progress is steady and if ES.next is finished
by 2013 then that is quite impressive. Compare: five years between Java 6 –
with few new features – and Java 7.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter:
not as
first evaluating obj.foo and then applying the () operator) then things do make
sense – evaluating obj.foo is a different thing and simply gives you back the
function you put there. And, thankfully, with strict mode, things fail fast if
you forget to bind() a method.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a.
be an error.
As a human, I would want an ES6 trigger to appear as early as possible. I
wouldn’t want to read through a file, encounter an ES6 trigger at the end and
then have to revise the understanding of the code that I had so far. I like the
whole-file-or-nothing approach
ible (“The construct has identical syntax and static
semantics in both ES5 and ES6, but differing semantics.”)
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss
o specify only (exclusively) an ES6 environment. You
pretend to live in a “perfect ES6 world” and then only have two labels. There
are two ways out of this world:
- Non-ES6 environments for implementors: refer to ECMA-262 version 5.1.
- Non-ES6 environments for developers: simulate ES6 (via sta
ne hand and ES6 and ES5.strict on the other hand. But
it makes sense that even if developers (engine users) are presented with
something simple, implementors have to take care of many more details.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rausch
On Jan 7, 2012, at 23:22 , Claus Reinke wrote:
> But the new plan reminds me strongly of bad experiences in Haskell-land.
That sounds interesting. Is this documented somewhere?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.
s-from-ES6)
ES5.nonstrict-ES6-intersection
ES6-only (=ES6-differs-from-ES5.nonstrict)
This might be about to the question as to whether there should be a mode that
combines ES6-differs-from-ES5.strict constructs with ES5.nonstrict. I don’t
think there should be.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rausc
f it applies to ECMAScript, but
> some of it ties into my comments on ECMAScript, so I think it is best
> to leave it in the blog post vs. reproducing here. Also, I do not
> expect answers to my questions right away, just throwing out things
> that would be nice to have answered as part of th
ecimal literal to
> dodge the error, but then JS/Node.js is at a loss, and for no good reason. In
> this case I will argue for supporting octal literals in strict mode.
>
> /be
>
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@m
both. Then we have three kinds of non-decimal literals, for example:
0b1011, 0o732 and 0x.
For long literals, Java has started to make "_" as a separator legal, that
would be nice to have, too:
let aLotOfMoney = 120_327_756_228;
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home
does that code profit from block lambdas – really nice to look at. In
some cases, things would fit into a single line where you were forced to split
into multiple lines without BLs.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitte
, initValue2) { | arg1, arg2 | ... }
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
I think it’s a valid concern. The idea is: If I can implement my own loops (the nice-looking paren-free syntax feeds that illusion!) then I also want those loops to have break and continue. You could statically determine what construct, say, a break applies to and either throw a BreakException (if
make lambdas trailing arguments, similar to
if (cond) {} {}
And I would rather achieve this effect without currying. Following a block with
a non-block doesn’t seem like a good idea.
Has the other approach been considered?
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: r
be able to
> predict what `break` and `continue` will do.
I don’t think it’s a must-have, but whenever you catch exceptions, you have
similar issues.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_
}
}
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
ollowing a block with a non-block
doesn’t seem like a good idea. With a normal paren call, I don’t see any
problems.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss
re either parenthesized or
paren-free. In the latter case, all parameters must be lambdas.”
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Cool. I also have a feeling that every paren-free lambda after the first one should have some kind of preceding keyword or name, but I don’t know how one could make that happen. Brace-free object literals? (only half joking)On Jan 15, 2012, at 3:42 , Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich
xtensively). Then it should become
clear where/if people miss break and continue. A label is a reasonable
work-around that should even survive the insertion of a “loop-ifying” keyword.
Could we call block lambdas just lambdas? The former seems a bit pleonastic.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@r
at has been discussed so far *might* also eventually be, but I
don’t see it (yet).
Claus Reinke’s recount of lessons learned by the Haskell community in this area
also seems relevant:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-January/019396.html
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rausc
including ES3. We should
> see if we can identify a translation between well chosen subsets of AMD and
> ES.next modules. But even if no good automatic translation is found, code
> written to AMD will be more easily ported to ES.next modules than code
> written by current we
if (...) break exit with "early"; //[no LineTerminator here]
> before "with"
> ...
> }
>};
+1
It might make sense to also introduce an “unlabeled” break-with that exits from
the current (unlabeled) block.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@raus
h
gives you the possibility to isolate yourself locally from the rest of the
system. That is, you can override “system modules” locally.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
@Andrea, Mariusz: Are you aware of the RequireJS optimizer [1]? It can be used
together with almond [2], an AMD loader with minimal footprint.
[1] http://requirejs.org/docs/optimization.html
[2] https://github.com/jrburke/almond
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
401 - 500 of 582 matches
Mail list logo
