On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Brendan Eich > bren...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>>
>> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> Java is one example of a language that suppor
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Depending on the design, this could be anywhere from "only
>> errors raise exceptions" to "developers must supply a
>> algorith
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Brendan Eich > bren...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>
> In JS, it's a lot easier with
>>
> the VM support for filtering based on except
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
>> I'll tell you straight out that TC39 should pay more attention to
>> debugging.
>>
>
> How would that work? Debuggers are evolving rapidly, should we standardize
> one now? T
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
>> Debuggers provide break-on-exception as a valuable development feature.
>> Why? Because developers know that an exception is something the merits
>> special attention. If we want to invest
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Brendan Eich > bren...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The value of (2) is low but real.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. (2) i
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
> Throw/catch is useful for exceptions, it doesn't mean that such a
> mechanism could not have other legitimate uses. I think that we are not
> accustomed to use it for anything else than exceptions in everyday code,
> because we don't often ne
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Brandon Benvie <
>> bran...@brandonbenvie.com
>> <mailto:brandon@brandonbenvie.**com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The magical qu
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Brandon Benvie
wrote:
> The magical quality that throw has is its ability to end multiple call
> frames at once. Much like a second continuation channel, or the error
> channel in a promise, it escapes past any number of listeners on the normal
> channel, only stop
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> ...
>
> I'r all in 8.2.4.1 and 8.2.4.2 (GetValue/SetValue).
>
> Consider an expression like:
> 123.0.toFixed
>
> This evaluates to a Reference value {base: 0, referenced name: "toFixed",
> strict: false}
> (or strict is true if in s
I'm trying to decode section 8.2.4
The Reference Specification Type
I believe that it is trying to say
obj.prop = ...
obj is reference base
prop is reference name
But base can also be Boolean, String, Number and env. record. I can't
figure out what a reference name means in these cases. I guess
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:10 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:50 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>> ...
>> >
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:52 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:23 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>>
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:23 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
>>
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
>
> All the Object functions that operate on multiple properties are currently
> specified using *pendingException* which reports the first thrown
> exception after going through all
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:50 AM, John J Barton wrote:
> ...
> > But most of all we want this feature to land and not just spin around
> here.
> >
> > jjb
>
> As Object.mixin or as
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Brandon Benvie
wrote:
> Ah yes errors. It should probably have similar semantics to how
> defineProperties works now...attempting each property and holding errors
> until the end, no? Same for assign.
No, we want early errors and accurate line numbers.
>
> func
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Brendan Eich
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>
I recommend allowing let declarations only in strict mode. This is the
simple, backwards-compatible path. Strict mode
You might be interested in the work of Salman Mirghasemi on anonymous
function naming in JavaScript:
http://johnjbarton.github.com/nonymous/index.html
jjb
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Aron Homberg wrote:
> I implemented a JS parser last week (in JS) which specially parses the
> function g
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM, John J Barton > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:33 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In this messa
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:33 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In this message, I'll be sharing some experience I've had with the Q
> library. I have worked with it for about 7-8 months in a medium/big Node.js
> application (closed source, so I can't link, sorry).
> I'll be covering only the parts
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> In theory, one can use prototype properties to provide default values for
> instance properties.
>
In practice instances are free to write on these values in addition to
using them as defaults. Then suddenly the 'default' is changed for o
h rather than tooltips to allow a more complete UI.
>
> Isaac could then solve his problem trivially by adding a debugger where he
> would have called free and look at what other places in the source are still
> holding references.
I hope for "trivially" but I'll settle
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> So, yes, you can certainly use debugging tools to find which objects
> are leaking. But, there are times when you have a program where
> something is leaking, and you read through the code, and see that
> there is no possible way that it
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> wrote:
>>> var obj = {}
>>> var foo = { ref: obj }
>>
>> I assume that in your real life, you don't know 'foo' but somehow you
>> know that foo.ref is never used?
>
> Well, you know that IF foo.ref is used, it's an error, and ought to
> th
On Oct 25, 2012 8:42 PM, "Domenic Denicola"
wrote:
>
> The new thing this proposal brings to the table is the ability to mark,
from within your code, exactly what object you're worried about the
leakiness of. You also get very understandable error messages for
determining who's using that object.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> It'd be really nice if JS had a way to explicitly delete an object.
I guess you mean ... a way to set all the refs to a object to undefined.
> What do you folks think about a "free" operator (or something like it)
> that would actually do
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> I'm in the same boat. I see the attraction, very long run. Perhaps others
> will weigh in.
I guess very few developers off this list know that [[Prototype]]
exists. That is, the special double square bracket syntax is not
something developers
Maybe this is already obvious, but if modules are tightly coupled to
files then the concatenation really has to be a container of files (eg
zip) and it's not part of the language. If multiple modules can be
declared in a single file, then concatenation is part of the language
and has to work whethe
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:10 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 4:51 PM, John J Barton
> wrote:
...
>
> Concrete example: Even and Odd modules refer to each other, but the import
> statements occur after some initialization:
>
> module Odd {
> exp
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:45 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>> OK, so:
>>
>> module A {
>> console.log("a");
>> export var x;
>> }
>>
>> console.log("$");
>> import x from A;
>>
>> Does this print:
>
> Good question. The way
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> That is not my understanding, but I don't think it matters: that is an
>> implementation specific notion without consequence. Whether the
>> compiler treats all of the top level statements of a
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
...
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>
> I proposed that we replace "Program" in this context with "Script". This
> is much less confusing and matches the most common manifestation of an ES
> Program as an HTML script block.
>
>
>
> +1 -- it the ter
On Oct 10, 2012 4:20 PM, "Rick Waldron" wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> +1 Tracuer uses 'Program' and that makes it too easy to forget that
>> the program consists of multiple Program-s
>>
+1 Tracuer uses 'Program' and that makes it too easy to forget that
the program consists of multiple Program-s
jjb
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>
>> I proposed that we replace "Program" in this context with "Script". This
>> is much less c
On Oct 3, 2012 12:39 PM, "Domenic Denicola"
wrote:
> Would it suffice to allow cross-frame sharing of symbols via postMessage
> and its structured clone algorithm? They're immutable, right?
>
I'm trying to follow this thread, but I'm having trouble understanding the
problem.
There are two cross
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Kris Kowal wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Brendan Eich
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the problem is -- I read the old thread, and noticed
>>> the
>>> solution:
>>> var global = Function("return this")();
>>> This is good
tion with a window variable redefined.
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM, John J Barton
> wrote:
>>
>> Long ago this list had a subject:
>>
>> How to retrieve the global object in strict mode?
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2011-Februar
Long ago this list had a subject:
How to retrieve the global object in strict mode?
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2011-February/003919.html
Roughly the conclusion was:
var global = ("global", eval)("this");
However Content Security Policy
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/content-secur
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, John J Barton
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Rafael Weinstein
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> A synchronous observation mechanism pro
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> >> A synchronous observation mechanism provides an attacker too many
> >> opportunities for a plan interference attack. If you'll recall, an
> earlier
> >> synchronous proposal died for this reason.
>
> That is an excellent reason. I have
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> David Herman wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>>
>> I'm not yet convinced that Object.update should be restricted to own
properties. If you're only using object literals, then yeah, you want own
proper
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> It is a matter of definition and taste, but I don't think it is useful to
> think of these as macros. I expect macros to extend the base language as if
> adding new special forms, where these special forms are stylistically
> similar to the exi
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> Ah, OK. Spitballing: A synonym of tag then, maybe? Alas, label is out. If
> the term was, say, “mark” then one could conceivably say “mark function”
> instead of handler.
>
Aren't these macros?
tag`literal${substitution}literal`
macro`
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Just define the order of execution between ES6 and pre-ES6 to run
>> legacy.js first.
>>
>
> You'd have to detect (before execution) whether a script was "ES6" or not,
> which is not practical, AFAICT.
>
As Dave suggests, my gut feeling is t
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Thanks Dave, for writing your blog post - it definitely cleared up some
> things for me (macros in particular). If there were no module systems
> already in place, I would definitely agree with static resolution.
> However, it seems to me t
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
> When reading Dave's post on "Static module resolution" [1],
> the section on "Future-compatibility for macros" struck me
> as a case where users/proponents of different module systems
> seem to be talking past each other. All agree that there
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:47 AM, James Burke wrote:
> The discussion on what is allowed, in particular import *, could still
> happen, but at least there would be a baseline that would allow for
> them in a way that makes it easier for existing code to transition to
> the new world.
I hope for
As I understand it, two issues drive the need for standardization of
modules:
1) we want one environment for all JS,
2) to move beyond the limitations of RequireJS and CommonJS requires
parsing, and that is considered too expensive for library implementations.
The first point is obvious, the se
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Erik Arvidsson
wrote:
> I wrote a new strawman for Error stack which is now available in some
> form in all major browser (if betas are considered).
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:error_stack
>
> Feedback wanted.
You might look at the Mueller
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:45 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 29/05/2012 21:18, John J Barton a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eich
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> John J Barton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is one of those cases w
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Claus Reinke wrote:
>> If you look back on this thread you will see an example extracted from
>> the case that caused me pain. In the real life case I was using Kris
>> Kowal's Q_COMM library, which builds on Q and is quite sophisticated
>> code.
>>
>> I added a fu
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Anton Kovalyov wrote:
> FWIW I don't think it's even possible to use JSLint and 'with'. The parser
> just quits as if it was a syntax error.
Yes this is correct.
>
> Anton
>
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> John Tamplin wrote:
>
>
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> This is one of those cases where a small delta creates a very large
>> negative effect.
>
>
> Evidence?
If you look back on this thread you will see an example extracted from
the ca
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 28, 2012, at 10:03 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>> So let's rew
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2012, at 10:03 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>
>>
>> So let's rewind to my original question. If the discussion about SES
>> is leading us toward more things like freeze(), let's do a better
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM, John Tamplin wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM, John J Barton
> wrote:
>>
>> > The only question is whether you get
>> > an exception when you create discover() or when you call it. Your code
>> > can
>>
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Russell Leggett
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, T.J. Crowder
>> wrote:
>> > On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett wrote:
>> >>>
&
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:33 PM, John Tamplin wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM, John J Barton
> wrote:
>>
>> function app() {
>> var r = makeExample();
>> r.discover = function() {
>> console.log("I want to call this function
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
> On 28 May 2012 18:46, Russell Leggett wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps this discussion would be aided by a more concrete example.
>
> Doh! Excellent idea. John, if you'd like...? (Otherwise I can do one.)
Here's mine:
Source:
https://github.com/johnj
On May 28, 2012 2:53 AM, "T.J. Crowder" wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2012 06:37, John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> A library writer creates an object in one scope and all of their tests
>> succeed. I use it another scope and my code fails. We are both using
>> legal
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
...
>>> First rule of strict mode: "use strict" only affects code that is lexically
>>> within the scope of the directive. It has no global effect.
>>
>> My example contradicts this claim.
>
> No, read the spec. You seem to be perceivin
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2012, at 5:13 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>
> ...
> The reason I asked is that "use strict" seems to be a subset but acts
> like another version in some cases. In particular, if a library uses
&
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eich
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> David Bruant wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> David Bruant wrote:
>
>> Once we're at it, for the sake of completeness there is probably no harm
>> in adding a Reflect.setPrototype at this point, is there?
>
>
> There is, just as there's a cost to Object.setPrototypeOf (the obvious place
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> * Traceur seems to be coming along nicely, but its alignment with the spec
> leaves a lot to be desired. Destructuring just got fixed a few days ago, and
> they have a class syntax you have to avoid to write ES6-as-it-is--compatible
>
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:25 AM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
>> Inside the catch, the catch-scope is first for reading and writing.
>> But the catch scopes are ignored for declaring new variables. So your
>> expectation seems to be the correct one.
>
>
> That was my analysis as well.
>
> §10.5 tells us th
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
>>> Will Reflect.parse be standardized?
>
>
>> Maybe. It's too late for ES6 and different implementations have different
>> concrete parse trees, I bet -- although perhaps they all agree on concrete,
>> there's still the question of mapping to a
+1 too all this
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
> What is the goal of this?
>
> If the goal is to get people to stop complaining, don't bother, people will
> always complain. So long as there is a TC-39 there will be people that strive
> to be armchair language designers an
oo && foo.bar) {
and avoid other left-hand side problems?
(FWIW I don't really think this is a big deal one way or another).
jjb
>
> /be
>
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>>
>>> Object class refl
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Object class reflection is frowned upon in Smalltalk for a reason. We want
> protocols, structural conventions -- not nominal type tags. Or so I think!
Perhaps it would be helpful if someone made the case for typeof null
=== 'null'.
To me typ
+1 High integrity engineering of components supports low integrity
integration essential for low cost adaptable systems. We have scripting for
the same reason we carpenters. We could build a house using a computer
milling machine but no one could afford it; we don't want JavaScript to
enforce high
Ok I gotta testify for the other side: use strict is not all roses. I hit
three problems with 'use strict':
1. I wrote the following code in JavaScript:
function register(otherWindow, local, options) {
var remote = Q_COMM.Connection(otherWindow, local, options);
remote.discover = functi
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
> The new forms we're adding (methods and arrows) have the potential to
> change this radically, causing a large percentage of functions encountered
> by programmers to have binding. If that binding is hard-binding, .call()
> and .apply() bre
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Joey Schorr wrote:
> Do I have constraints in my compiler (do I need to ship in a certain way)?
>>
>
> No, you just need to provide the source map file with your code.
>
This 'provide' step is a bit of a headache since it means you have to
coordinate your compil
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> What is a good term for functions that don’t have/use dynamic `this`?
> “Non-method function” defines them by what they aren’t, I would like a
> positive definition. I’ve considered the term “pure function”, but the
> adjective “pure” is
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I keep finding the frame problem overrated, specially in this case where
> the case you are passing DOM nodes between frames is ... well, extremely
> edge?
The frame problem might appear overrated if you im
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Herby Vojčík wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this is more a conceptual question post. But first some proposals that
> circulated in the list:
>
> 1. Dynamic-this enabled fat arrow functions.
>
> (this, ...) => expr
> (this, ...) => { body }
>
> 2. ABC (apply/bind/call) shortc
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM, John J Barton
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Burke wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> So, assuming Math has no dependencies (just
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Burke wrote:
>
> So, assuming Math has no dependencies (just to make this shorter), the
> sequence of events:
>
> * Load Foo, convert to AST, find "from" usage.
> * Load Math
> * Compile Math
> * Evaluate Math
> * Inspect Math's exported module value for pro
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 01/04/2012 13:38, Wes Garland a écrit :
>
> In a similar vein, I would personally like to have
>> zero-cost-when-not-debugging assert() statements, and am hopeful that
>> statically-linked modules might lead the way.
>>
> It seems to me th
Allen's original post on this thread offered two choices:
1) extended object literals, (good building blocks).
2) both, (because class gives 80% and thus they complement).
Erik and Tab are arguing for
3) Min-max classes (we need 80%, not building blocks).
The current winner no one wants:
4)
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> I agree with you, auto-appending is too concrete and JS-only. We can't use
> auto-append as a fallback since it's ambiguous (foo and foo.js could exist)
> and we shouldn't prefer foo based on existence (we'd have to GET twice or
> otherwise p
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:30 PM, David Herman wrote:
>
>
> >
> > baseUrl + ID + ".js"
>
> Yeah, I've thought about auto-appending ".js". I think you're right that
> it opens up the possibility to be a little more abstract.
Auto-appending makes the API less abstract:the arguments must be JS. Tha
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:47 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>
>> And like require.js we will have difficulty resynchronizing the script
>> loading with document loading. For example, the above code may fail if the
>> callback
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:06 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>
> In another thread Allen says:
>
>we infer from array behavior that for-in was intended to iterate over
> the data elements of an object and not the be
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
> >> Brendan Eich wrote:
> >> > Kevin's analysis contradicts your assertion. Expression-bodied
> >> > functions with bound |this| (or var self=this outside) predominate in
> >> > the code he surveyed.
>
> >> See thread headed by this message:
>
>
In another thread Allen says:
we infer from array behavior that for-in was intended to iterate over
the data elements of an object and not the behavioral elements (eg methods).
Similar comments have been implied around the discussion of enumerable
properties. I personally have never seen any J
Just a bit related and perhaps of interest: Back when I believed in
operator overloading, I wrote a package to allow C++ classes to inherit
consistent overloading. The package consisted of templatized base classes
that defined say the binary + operator in terms of +=. The base class
parameter was t
good path. Ok maybe willy-nilly is a bit strong ;-)
jjb
>
> /be
>
>
> John J Barton wrote:
>
>>
>> I appreciate understanding why this choice.
>>
>> (FWIW, I totally don't get why non-enumerable even exists).
>>
>
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> not enumerable, all around. In the proposal it say class def method will
> follow the same attribute conventions as obj lit concise methods.
>
I appreciate understanding why this choice.
(FWIW, I totally don't get why non-enumerable eve
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> Right. I also like Node’s idea of “global module names”, where a module
> name is a location-independent identifier, for a module that might be
> installed locally or globally.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by 'module names'.
http://wiki
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
> But your question is probably more about what the default policy of the
> System loader will be on the web. First of all, the System loader's baseURL
> (should it be baseURI? I never u
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>
>> I guess you mean: a special form evaluated before the outer function
>> runs? Surely this form is not off-line.
>>
> No, before anything in the containing Program (up to the
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> If I go back to my previous question, can we understand what should happen
>> here?
>>
>> if (version === 1)
>> import y from 'lib1.js';
>> else
>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, John J Barton
> wrote:
>>
>> The module solution posted seems to have a top-notch solution for the
>> static case but the dynamic case is buried in the loader.
>
> I do
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> Second, we need a solution for asynchronous loading with run-time
>> selection. We use it now and as we move to much better network layers
>> we will use it a lot more.
>
>
>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John J Barton wrote:
>>
>> I guess you mean: a special form evaluated before the outer function
>> runs? Surely this form is not off-line.
>
> No, before anything in the containing Program (up to the
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> David Herman wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:28 PM, John J Barton wrote:
>>
>>> equals makes sense when it is assigment:
>>>
>>> module Bar = load("bar.js");
>>
>>
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> I like variant B, because it follows the rules:
> - "module" => define a module
> - "import" => extract something out of a module
>
> But I would use a keyword instead of "=" (due to the reason that you
> mentioned). Compare:
>
> modu
1 - 100 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
