rface.question(question, function(input) {
resolve(input);
})
}
run();
```
__
Jorge Téllez
+52 1 81 2567 8257
@novohispano <http://twitter.com/novohispano>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Barronville
> wrote:
>
> From the example provided, as someone who uses promise
prototypes.
__
Jorge Téllez
+52 1 81 2567 8257
@novohispano <http://twitter.com/novohispano>
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Unless you have a specific requirement I am missing, your use case is more
elegantly resolved IMO using a custom generator that yields exactly the
information you need per iteration.
A functional approach using a function that has the information you need is
also another valid solution.
--
On 04/03/2015, at 20:17, Matthew Robb wrote:
>
>
> Sorry this should have read:
> ```
> var x = Object.create(X.prototype); X.call(x);
> ```
Ooops, too late, sorry... :-P
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss
interchangeable. In one case the
prototype is X.prototype and in the other it's Object.prototype.
Have you never seen this line in constructors?
if ( !( this instanceof X ) ) return new X(a.copy.of.the.arguments.goes.here);
--
( Jorge )();
_
On 27/02/2015, at 16:16, Andri Möll wrote:
>> because every object inherits from Object.prototype
[ {} instanceof Object, Object.create(null) instanceof Object ]
-> [true, false]
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mo
f }; a=f; f=null; a()
-> null
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
$ node
04+05
9
040+050
72
Is that right? Isn't it a bit of a mess/wtf? Is it going to stay so in the
future?
Thank you,
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
eclaration are never
>>> dynamically added to a non-global environment.
>>
>> +lots, this should be front of mind.
>>
>> In a block, we want the bindings local to that block to be statically
>> analyzable. We want no non-local mode effects.
hould say 0 and I can't see why that is not
>> obvious.
>
> 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
On 08/12/2013, at 16:26, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> * Way forward
>
> As always, only the chairs can speak for the JSON WG, and even they
> need to confirm any needed consensus in the WG beforehand. But I
> think I can say that we are still only guessing what TC39 is trying to
> achieve with the
rk
> around the limit of six parallel requests. The moment you remove that
> limitation, bundling is unnecessary and only hurts performance.
The ability to ask for n files in a *single* request is key, yes.
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing
gt; ± there's a round-trip delay per request (even with http2.0), and that the
> only
> ± way to avoid it is to bundle things, as in .zip bundling, to minimize the
> ± (number of requests and thus the) impact of latencies.
>
> Go find some HTTP2 presentation, yo
pact of latencies.
And there's something else I think .zip bundling can provide that http2.0
can't: the guarantee that a set of files are cached by the time your script
runs: with such a guarantee you could do synchronous module require()s, à la
node.js.
Cheers,
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 14/10/2013, at 22:11, David Bruant wrote:
> You already can with inlining, can't you?
It would also be very interesting to know if you had .zip packing, would you be
inlining?
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@moz
k the browser cache? Browser caching relies on knowing
> when - and when *not* to ask. If server push starts sending things without
> being asked, isn't that potentially sending down a lot of unnecessary data?
I think I've read somewhere that it sends the resources in separate &
e the connection has been
established, a network packet takes almost 250 ms to go from the ethernet port
of my computer the the ethernet port of a server in Brazil, and another 250 ms
for the response packet to come back.
The only work around for that is making as few requests as po
vial always: often you can't simply concatenate and expect it to
work as-is (e.g. module scripts).
-You might be forcing the server to build and/or gzip (á la PHP) on the fly =>
much more load per request.
-Inlined source isn't always semantically === non-inlined sou
On 14/10/2013, at 18:47, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> IIRC roundtrip happens once per domain so your math is a bit off.
Can you elaborate? I don't quite understand...
Thank you,
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.o
st with 500 ms of
latency, is 500kB on a 1 megabyte per second ADSL, or 1 megabyte in a 2
megabyte/s ADSL, etc. So for 60 requests it's 30 or 60 megabytes.
Yes a server could perhaps fix that for me almost transparently, but with this
I could as well fix it all by mys
ithub.io/zip.js/>
?
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 13/10/2013, at 21:34, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>>
>> Are main.js and assets.zip two separate files, or is main.js expected to
>> come from into assets.zip?
>
> The latter.
>
>> I think the latter would be best because it would guaran
ervers are much more complicated than that, and no
two servers are programmed nor configured equal.
And http2.0 and 'speedy' and all their beauty too, in the future. Why does it
have to be one or the other?
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
appened? Why was it ditched? Was it, perhaps, too ahead of its
time?
Let's try again :-)
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 11/10/2013, at 13:23, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 11/10/2013 12:46, Jorge Chamorro a écrit :
>> On 11/10/2013, at 12:02, David Bruant wrote:
>>
>>> Providing a zip in the manifest file could work, but I'm not sure I see the
>>> benefit over individual
Another is than once the .zip has been unzipped, its files can be accessed
synchronously.
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
time main.js runs, as if they were
local files, ready to be require()d synchronously.
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
nd.
Because all the files in the .zip would appear to be 'local', a synchronous
require() can be built on top of that, and suddenly we'd have almost 100%
node-style modules compatibility in browsers. Or am I missing something?
--
( Jorge )();
On 09/10/2013, at 18:46, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> function f() {
> var undefined = null /* fix that silly null vs. undefined shenanigans */,
> NaN = Math.sqrt(2) /* make sure nan is not rational */,
> Infinity = 1000 /* this should be big enough */
> }
Sheesh, fix NaN, it shouldn't be
On 08/10/2013, at 19:59, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404
Hmmm, ECMA-404... why 404? The "not found" web standard? Pun intended?
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing li
There's a typo in 9.-String: the phrase "All characters may be placed within
the quotation marks except for the characters that must be escaped: quotation
mark (U+0022), reverse solidus (U+005C), and the control characters U+ to
U+001F. " is repeate
IIUC top level values are valid JSON texts now, is that right?
"""
4 JSON Text
A JSON text is a sequence of tokens formed from Unicode code points that
conforms to the JSON value
grammar.
"""
The document is sublime. 14 pages of which 8 are not content. Now that&
l() call to let the program
know if there were any events pending, in a program in a busy loop this helps
decide whether it's time to yield or not.
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 28/07/2013, at 14:13, David Bruant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Asked by Angus Croll [1]. Interestingly, people who answered giving code
> didn't agree on a method or getter. Hence the need for a standard :-)
I've seen that before, somewhere, but it was .peek() not .last:
[1,2]
ng(2).length
53
(Math.pow(2,52)-1).toString(2)
""
(Math.pow(2,52)-1).toString(2).length
52
Math.pow(2,52)-0.5
4503599627370495.5
Math.pow(2,52)+0.5
4503599627370496
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 10/07/2013, at 03:45, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>> On 10/07/2013, at 03:23, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>>> FWIW, we include 2**53 as in the "contiguous range of exactly
>>>> representable natural numbers&quo
ises proving some properties of this
> code correct and laying the groundwork for proving conservation of currency.
> However, none have previously spotted this hole.
Right, if balance+amount ever result in 2**53+1, the code would rather "see" it
(and save it!) as 2**53.
Sort of a
ses/startSES.js#492
>
> It's exactly representable, but its representation is not exact. If that
> makes sense!
2**53 is exactly representable, but it gets the exact same representation as
2**53 + 1
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing l
er (2^53+1) that cannot be exactly represented.
>
> In other words, if you see the IEEE float 64 encoding of
> 9,007,199,254,740,992 you don't know if it is an exact representation of 2^53
> or an approximate representation of 2^53+1.
>
> 2^53-1 is the max integer value
On 02/06/2013, at 01:22, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
>> But they're not fully interchangeable, for example I can exit a function at
>> any point with a return, but can I exit a block at any point with a break or
>> something?
>
sion” that would be able to
> do so:
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:do_expressions
Do expressions are cool! Are they in for es6?
Thanks.
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
d from the network
when is JS there's no means for IO?
Thank you,
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 01/06/2013, at 23:49, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2013, at 14:38 , Jorge wrote:
>>
>> How would this:
>>
>> (Function () {
>>
>> // ...
>>
>> })();
>>
>> now look like with arrow functions?
>>
>&g
s/Function/function/g
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Hi,
How would this:
(Function () {
// ...
})();
now look like with arrow functions?
(()=>{
// ...
})();
What can be left out, if anything?
Thank you,
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
ht
mes behave as if
setImmediate()d: you never know for sure.
To have a new event loop model that may block is a bad thing IMO, and the
"let's add a counter" solution isn't a good solution.
Before the mod always knew what was going to happen, now you don't.
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
JS infested of inconvenient APIs w3c-style?
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
t; 3) remove a message (clearTimeout which cancels a message added via a
> setTimeout message).
and this has nothing to do with the events queue.
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
x;,
and would allow the new forms, e.g. .map(ƒ(n) ...).
It's ~ the same case as `with` and if they really wanted it could be done, I
don't buy the "it wasn't possible", no.
But as bluntly as @rwaldron put it the other day: "arrows are here to stay"
than
const fib = (n) => { ... };
?
--
(Jorge)();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
free var to function properly which is
a hazard.
It never ocurred to me that using const instead of var/let as you've done above
fixes that, thank you!
Still, ƒ named lambdas have the advantage that can be used directly as
expressions, without going through any const roundabouts.
> Ok, and
x => f(v => x(x)(v)))
>
> which can be conveniently inlined into any expression where it's used:
>
> js> [1,2,3,4,5,6].map((n)=>(f => (x => f(v => x(x)(v)))(x => f(v =>
> x(x)(v(self => n => n>1 ? n*self(n-1) : n)(n));
> [1
e
>
> var rec = (f) => f((...args)=>rec(f)(...args));
>
> var f = (self)=>(n)=> n>1 ? n*self(n-1) : n;
>
> [1,2,3,4,5,6].map((n)=>rec(f)(n));
God, my eyes, they're bleeding!
Sorry arrow functions but this isn't a better JS.
--
(Jorge)();
JavaScript: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6TTQoqln7c>
We'd much rather play with unloaded guns than in hopes that nobody else pulls
the trigger?
--
(Jorge)();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
(even silent failures which is worse), it should better halt and
complain loudly about syntax errors.
IOW, Javascrhipster's style code is nothing but a big multi line syntax error,
fixed by ASI.
Happy new year!
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing
es yes sometimes no, functions' names are free
vars.
Cheers,
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 24/11/2012, at 07:14, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bind the name inside the function *too*.
>
> That's not a compatible change, and unmotivated by any actual foot damage.
>
>> The footgun (1) is to have the name bound *only*
On 23/11/2012, at 18:47, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>> On 22/11/2012, at 09:38, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> Right. I think Jorge may be concerned that naming a function does not
>>> always relieve the "need" for arguments.callee. But that'
expression it's a static scope that sits
>> between the outer scope and the (during execution of the function) inner
>> scope.
>>
>> Also just to clarify, the above isn't something I'm proposing. It's how
>> things currently work.
>
> Righ
On 19/11/2012, at 20:34, Brandon Benvie wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jorge Chamorro Bieling
> wrote:
>> On 17/11/2012, at 18:45, Brandon Benvie wrote:
>>
>>> The name property doesn't currently (and the I don't propose it should)
>>
e might end with function whose name (the value
returned by function.name) might be !== than its name as "seen" from inside the
function itself:
function ƒ () { return (ƒ.name !== 'ƒ') }
?
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-
o you mean
both the string in function.name *and* that var's name?
Cheers,
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
ect);
}
On the other hand, I have to say that I sympathize very much with the idea of
being able to say "destroy and garbage collect this object right now, no matter
what, no matter who else might hold a reference to it". But that's because I
don't buy so much the argument &q
if (Array.isArray(x)) ...
else if (RegExp.isRegExp(x)) ...
else if ( etc )
When you just want to assert that x is of type Type, then an if
(Type.isType(x)) would be ok, but a proper typeof would do just as well: if
(typeof x === "Type")
So it seems that a new, fixed typeof would be b
ways been talking about primitive values and
objects, isn't it?
Are we going to have RegExp.isRegExp() and Date.isDate() and Number.isNumber()
etc. too ?
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
ys ends the parameters list.
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
a constructor function called with
`new`, yes, `this` is most likely going to be the right `this` always, but when
you are building objects with a factory (e.g. with a .create() method), the
enclosing `this` usually isn't going to be the right one.
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Apr 2, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Jorge wrote:
>>
>> No [[Scope]]? I must be missing something! Given this code:
>>
>> bound= (function a(i) { return function b () { return i }.bind(null) })(27);
>> bound()
>> --> 27
>>
row functions (AF). Features: captured `this', captured `this' even in
> case of `new'.
And [[Extensible]] === false... I wonder why, why non-extensible ?
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
onsidered as an alternative for short function
syntax, that is, {| params | /* body */ } is a perfectly valid candidate for
short functions, without TCP.
And given that `this` is an invalid name for a parameter, to indicate a bound
this we could simply include it in the parameters list:
{
> there would be a major security benefit from safely parsing it at the ES
> engine level.
Yes, please, that would be awesome. IIRC Crockford proposed ~ that about a
century ago (JsonRequest() or something, ISTR)
+1k
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mai
, and restore them with
.parse() with their proper types/classes.
• understand and serialize all the JS primitives, including undefined
• properly recreate the holes in Arrays
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
ht
On 23/01/2012, at 04:57, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2012, at January 22, 20121:35 PM, Jorge wrote:
>> . Not at all. Not only it doesn't clamp to 4ms (which happens to be a good
>> thing, IMO), but its timers often fire out of order !
>
> node.js does not confor
asing success in
non-browser, no-DOM host environments *that want setTimeout*.
I'm open to Ecma TC39 absorbing setTimeout and the minimum machinery it
entrains. We should ping Hixie.
Why ?
What has changed ?
P.S.
Node.js does *not* conform. Not at all. Not only it doesn't clamp to 4ms (wh
On 21/01/2012, at 05:31, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Jorge <mailto:jo...@jorgechamorro.com>
>> January 20, 2012 7:15 PM
>>
>> Sorry, I don't follow, with "that" you mean "something else" or "the acute
>> accent" ?
>
> Oh,
e" or "the acute
accent" ?
str = ´agudo´
Error
• message: "Invalid character '\u0180'"
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
imeout( ƒ name () { ... }, 1e3)
setTimeout( `name () { ... }, 1e3)
ƒ name () { ... }
`name () { ... }
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 20/01/2012, at 19:17, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Jorge <mailto:jo...@jorgechamorro.com> January 20, 2012 1:22 AM
>>
>> Has a backtick/accent grave ever been considered and/or rejected ?
>>
>> Anonymous function expression:
>>
>> setTimeout( `(
nsidered and/or rejected ?
Anonymous function expression:
setTimeout( '(){ ... }, 1e3);
Named function expression:
setTimeout( 'name(){ ... }, 1e3);
Declarations:
`(){ ... } // error: can't declare anonymous functions
`name(){ ... }
--
Jorge.
for control abstractions that look like built-in control-flow statements."
The thread was "block lambda revival":
<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/thread.html#14563>
Cheers,
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss maili
ht require two braces. Or
whatever. Just saying.
My 0.02
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 09/11/2011, at 22:05, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Jorge wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011, at 22:17, John J Barton wrote:
>>> Just as a point of comparison, I use this form:
>>> Object.keys(o).forEach( function(key) {
>>>body
>>> });
out of a forEach 'loop' ?
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 04/11/2011, at 18:51, Jorge wrote:
> On 03/11/2011, at 23:55, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> 3) Although SES is *formally* an object-capability language, i.e., it has
>> all the formal properties required by the object-capability model, it has
>> bad usability properties
get: function(i) { return array[i]; }
});
}
o= makeTable();
o.add(1);
o.add(2);
o.add(3);
o.add('Yay!');
o.store('__proto__', {push:function () { console.log(this) }});
o.add();
Gives:
[ 1, 2, 3, 'Yay!' ]
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 31/10/2011, at 18:07, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Jorge wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, it's grawlix-y too but... how about
>>
>> let object= base :: {a: 1, b: 2};
>>
>> ?
>
> No, that's wanted for wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.
On 31/10/2011, at 08:57, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:20 AM, Jorge wrote:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a long arrow may work ?
>>
>> let object= base <== {a: 1, b: 2};
>
> Does not overcome the grawlix objection.
Hmm, it's grawlix-y too but
)\s+(\w)+/g
>
> It's still idiomatic as a name for differential inheritance, but it is more
> pithy than 'make' or 'create' (and one character shorter than 'create' -- no
> Unix 'creat' reruns! ;-). Comments?
>
>
On 21/10/2011, at 21:23, Dean Landolt wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jorge > On 21/10/2011, at 17:40, Eric Jacobs wrote:
>>>
>>> Jorge,
>>>
>>> Would it still be satisfying to you if instead of writing the call
>>> expression li
On 21/10/2011, at 17:40, Eric Jacobs wrote:
> Jorge,
>
> Would it still be satisfying to you if instead of writing the call expression
> like this:
>> try {
>> response = asyncFunction(request); //might suspend execution
>> }
>> catch (e) {
>> //
On 21/10/2011, at 11:07, Jorge wrote:
>
> And this has several (valuable, imo) advantages:
>
> - We aren't trashing the call stack on every async call: we can finally debug
> properly!
> - We can (finally!) catch the exceptions where and when it matters.
> - We can lo
On 20/10/2011, at 23:37, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Jorge wrote:
>
>> the assert_invariants() at the next line might run in another turn of the
>> event loop (when f() resumes), just as the callback does.
>
> No. Nothing in JS today, since it lac
On 20/10/2011, at 18:38, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:44 AM, Jorge wrote:
>> On 19/10/2011, at 23:34, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>>
>>> The other objection is that (ignoring some evil native APIs such as sync
>>> XHR) JS has run-to-completio
But, in the first case you can't try/catch where it matters (which is
annoying), and you can't write your code linearly as if it were synchronous,
which is a (bit of a) pain.
So I must be missing something. What's it ?
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
JS's C-like syntax should be
left as is.
C remains the second most popular programming language in the world:
http://tcrn.ch/prmhOf
JavaScript's C-like syntax is a Good Thing™
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
for some people it is, I would say for most
people it isn't. (I see the glass almost empty).
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
t objects be passed to library code that cannot assume
> plain-old-native-object non-magical semantics?
Yes, buffers are live too. buffer[i] === buffer[i] may be false sometimes.
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
nything but a callback and that breaking that means you're
> basically breaking node.
But fibers don't break that guarantee (if it exists at all: contexts are *not*
immutable, even without fibers).
--
Jorge.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-dis
On 24/06/2011, at 01:31, Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2011 6:14 PM, "Jorge" wrote:
>
>> JS -unlike other languages- is important enough that it does not need to
>> follow these (dubious) trendy fashions to become popular. Nor to survive.
>
> Do you reall
plus: less to learn: an old,
popular, widely used, well-known, and familiar syntax.
JS -unlike other languages- is important enough that it does not need to follow
these (dubious) trendy fashions to become popular. Nor to survive.
Proper punctuation aids comprehension and we're programm
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
