$ 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
On 30/01/2014, at 17:13, Brendan Eich wrote:
John Barton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
John Lenz wrote:
Generally, I've always thought of:
if (x) ... as equivalent to if (x) { ... }
On 25/10/2013, at 08:17, Ilya Grigorik wrote:
With HTTP 1.x (and without sharding) you can fetch up to six resources in
parallel. With HTTP 2.0, you can fetch as many resources as you wish in
parallel. The only reason bundling exists as an optimization is to work
around the limit of six
On 24/10/2013, at 17:06, François REMY wrote:
HTTP 2.0 can send you multiple files in parallel on the same connection: that
way you don't pay (1) the TCP's Slow Start cost, (2) the HTTPS handshake and
(3) the cookie/useragent/... headers cost.
Doesn't connection:keep-alive deal with (1) and
On 24/10/2013, at 04:17, Ilya Grigorik wrote:
Hey all. Late to the discussion here, but after scanning the thread, figured
it might be worth sharing a few observations...
The fact that we have to bundle files at the application layer is an
unfortunate limitation of HTTP 1.x protocol.
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 guarantee that the assets
are there by the time
On 14/10/2013, at 17:20, David Bruant wrote:
How much are we trying to save with the bundling proposal? 200ms? 300ms? Is
it really worth it? I feels like we're trying to solve a first-world problem.
I think that the savings depend very much on the latency. For example from
where I am to
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.org
On 14/10/2013, at 22:11, David Bruant wrote:
You already can with inlining, can't you?
Yes and no:
-It's much more complicated than pre zipping a bunch of files and adding a ref
attribute.
-It requires additional logic at the server side, and more programming.
-It's not trivial always: often
On 14/10/2013, at 22:27, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
AFAIK you have those 500ms delay per roundtrip, as you said, but not per
domain.
I am talking about mobile and radio behavior where fetching from multiple
sources will result in a roundtrip mess/hell but fetching all resources from
a
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@mozilla.org
On 11/10/2013, at 03:10, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Last personal thought: this is way nicer than any AMD solution I've seen,
giving a real alternative to async modules too via script defer/async
attributes without requiring boiler plates all over to include on demand.
Because all the
On 11/10/2013, at 03:53, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
You are confining the problem in HTTP only scenarios while the
solution provided by
script src=lib/main.js
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 files. Disk fragmentation issues maybe?
One benefit is that a single .zip can fetch a bunch of files in a single
network round trip.
Another is
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 files. Disk fragmentation issues maybe?
One benefit
On 11/10/2013, at 15:15, Russell Leggett wrote:
Just wanted to point out a couple of previous attempts at something similar
to generic bundling and the reactions it got, because so far it hasn't panned
out.
Way back in 2008, it was my one and only real contribution to the whatwg list
On 11/10/2013, at 15:53, Russell Leggett wrote:
As you can see the resource packages attempt got dropped. Perhaps this
proposal will go through because it is tied to the module loader?
It's sad. What happened? Why was it ditched? Was it, perhaps, too ahead of
its time?
Let's try
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 a
On 08/10/2013, at 19:59, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404: THE JSON
Data Interchange Formal
See http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm
It provides the normative specification of the syntax of JSON Text
On 08/08/2013, at 15:55, David Bruant wrote:
This is not a Trying to protect us from ourselves situation. This is a
browser trying to protect users from any sort of abuse situation. For while
loops, they implemented the script takes too long dialog. For mistakenly
infinitely nested too
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].peek()
2
--
( Jorge )();
On 13/07/2013, at 01:24, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 07/12/2013 04:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If you don't agree with that reasoning, then I suppose you'd argue
that *all* numbers 2^53 should return true, since they're all forced
into being represented as integers?
All numbers = 2**53 except
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.
https://code.google.com/p/google-caja/source/browse/trunk/src
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.
https://code.google.com/p/google-caja/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/caja/ses/startSES.js#492
It's exactly representable, but
On 10/07/2013, at 03:49, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I initially didn't think this mattered, but it is an excellent and important
point. Look at the use I make of Nat in Dr.SES in Figure 1 of
http://research.google.com/pubs/pub40673.html:
var makeMint = () = {
var m = WeakMap();
var
On 23/03/2013, at 19:41, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Arrow functions are a good example: A more JavaScript-y syntax would have
been `fn`:
let squares = [1,2,3].map(fn(x) { return x*x });
Or:
let squares = [1,2,3].map(fn(x) x*x);
However, due to backward compatibility that syntax
On 17/03/2013, at 10:43, Claus Reinke wrote:
I understand, but it's still a limitation of arrow functions that they rely
on arguments.callee to self-reference. Relying on the defined name
they're assigned to suffers from the can be redefined problem. NFE's
don't suffer this problem and can
On 17/03/2013, at 12:16, Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote:
Neither arguments.callee (not available in strict) nor let (clumsy to
use in expressions) are needed for self-reference
var rec = (f) =
On 17/03/2013, at 14:33, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Just in case anyone does not realize that this thread is humorous,
const factorial = n = n1 ? n*factorial(n-1) : 1;
Yes, you can't use this as an expression. So what? After this declaration you
can use factorial as an expression.
IIRC
On 18/03/2013, at 01:49, Rick Waldron wrote:
snip
...and Brendan's point about backwards compatibility is irrefutable:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-January/019860.html
snip
How is
ƒ fib(n) { ... }
any more backwards incompatible than
const fib = (n) = { ... };
?
On 09/03/2013, at 00:54, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Mark,
that is an exhaustive list of links and talks but how many real use cases
where we let the user inject any sort of script code in the website and we
inject malicious libraries we are not aware, compared with the number of all
On 31/12/2012, at 15:55, Juan Ignacio Dopazo wrote:
I'm surprised not to see Automatic Semicolon Insertion in the list.
Yes I would ditch ASI altogether if only to force the javascrhipsters to put
back each and every semicolon where it belongs: they are *delimiters*.
No ASI would force them
On 25/11/2012, at 00:52, Brendan Eich wrote:
No. You're rehashing a hypothetical worry at this point.
No worries, but it's not a hypothesis that code outside a recursive FD can
break it at its will.
Evidence first, to get any farther.
The only evidence is that sometimes yes sometimes no,
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* in the outer scope.
We need evidence this is a real
On 22/11/2012, at 09:38, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brandon Benvie wrote:
I don't know the specific reasoning behind it. I guess the idea is that a
function is declared in a maximum of one scope. For the declaration it's the
outer scope, for a named function expression it's a static scope that sits
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's only true in a
function declaration, which
On 19/11/2012, at 20:34, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jorge Chamorro Bieling
jo...@jorgechamorro.com 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)
have a correlation to the name
On 17/11/2012, at 18:45, Brandon Benvie wrote:
The name property doesn't currently (and the I don't propose it should) have
a correlation to the name in scope. In function declarations the name is only
in scope because its declared in the outer scope, and this can be overwritten
On 16/11/2012, at 21:46, Brandon Benvie wrote:
Yeah, once you try to get fancy with interpolating a name you go down a dark
path real quick. I think that tends to be more in line with the concept
behind displayName which is the debug flavor of this and wants to do heroic
feats to trace a
On 20/03/2011, at 13:51, Jorge wrote:
On 20/03/2011, at 12:08, David Bruant wrote:
Le 20/03/2011 04:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
setTimeout does not introduce
I've had the need to read and save an array element just before updating it to
a new value:
oldValue= array[index];
array[index]= newValue;
doSomethingWith(oldValue)
If instead I had had to post-increment/decrement it I could have written just :
doSomethingWith( array[index]++ );
which is
On 15/12/2009, at 13:51, P T Withington wrote:
(...)
I once had the vain hope that I could say:
function MyArray () {}
MyArray.prototype = [];
to create my own subclasses of Array. That might have lessened the need for
isArrayLike.
For that, we'd need an Array.create(). It might be
On 15/12/2009, at 16:21, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
On 15/12/2009, at 13:51, P T Withington wrote:
(...)
I once had the vain hope that I could say:
function MyArray () {}
MyArray.prototype = [];
to create my own subclasses of Array
On 11/03/2009, at 1:40, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
We use arguments.callee.caller in a few places to get a call stack and
we rely on this feature to be able to analyze errors in production.
Spidermonkey has a stack property on the error object so we are ok in
Firefox. Until all js engines have this
El 14/09/2008, a las 21:30, Mark S. Miller escribió:
The arguments object itself is often passed in order for function F to
give function G access to the argument list F with which was called.
This seemingly innocent operation should not also inadvertently
provide G with the ability to call
El 15/09/2008, a las 22:32, Jon Zeppieri escribió:
IOW, could we have instead a ('standalone') 'callee' property (that
isn't to be innocently passed on) ?
...as a property of what?
The activation object of the execution context.
--
Jorge.
___
El 15/09/2008, a las 23:23, Brendan Eich escribió:
On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
El 15/09/2008, a las 22:32, Jon Zeppieri escribió:
IOW, could we have instead a ('standalone') 'callee' property (that
isn't to be innocently passed on) ?
...as a property of what
47 matches
Mail list logo
