On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
I agree holes need better handling in future arraylike extras. Design
effort there can start now, using today's JS. I'd welcome it. Perhaps
underscore does well already?
IIRC I chose the hole behaviour in the ES5 array
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
No worries, array extras are a great addition, we just need to keep rolling.
Oh, no offense taken. I just meant to say that there may be
consistency-with-existing-pattern reasons to prefer one hole behaviour
over another,
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Jonathan Dumaine
jonathan.duma...@dumstruck.com wrote:
You could go
all the way and make classes a very strict subset of the language: throw an
error if the user tries to set a property of a class instance that has
already been declared private
[...]
I would
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
Being able to detect when a condition is violated is not equivalent to
knowing that it always holds.
You're right, of course. Thanks for slicing that more finely for me.
Mike
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 14 September 2011 00:00, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So, static+dynamic. The static side has some powerful algorithms to bring to
bear. Dynamic is necessary due to eval and kin, and gives strictly more
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The modern mode won't seem very modern twenty years from now.
allen
My understanding is that anything after the Middle Ages is fair game,
and I see strict as the middle age between ES.now and ES.future. :-)
MIke
Which primitives have own properties? I thought even str.length
conceptually came from the prototype.
Mike
On Jul 22, 2011 6:13 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
To contrast non-method properties with methods:
- To say that instances usually only have non-method properties.
- To
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
If I hadn't made map skip holes, then the fill pattern would be simple
enough:
Array(4).map(function (_,x) x * x);
It's in particular case, you try to multiply indices, which in current
implementation of
On Jul 1, 2011 1:14 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Tim Smart wrote:
I quite the current prototype model we have in ecma5. My only gripes
would be that `prototype` to too wordy,
Do you use it that often?
15 years ago, writing an overwrought prototype
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change your
subscription settings, afaik, so the security in place seems proportionate.
Could report it upstream to the mailman team, I suppose.
Mike
On Jul 1, 2011 10:09 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
That’s a good start,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change your
subscription settings, afaik, so the security in place seems proportionate.
Could report it upstream
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/1 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
What can someone do with that password, though? Just change
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
http://blog.mozilla.com/dherman/2011/06/28/the-js-parser-api-has-landed/
I’ve just read D. Herman’s post on Firefox’s parser API. Is there any chance
that this kind of API will make it into Harmony? It would be really
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
I like the simplicity of this, but I'm not crazy about how it merges two
distinct objects into one. TodayJS (and most class-based languages) let you
distinguish two things:
1. A set of properties relevant to the class
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com wrote:
// ! implies non-writable, ~ implies non-enumerable
// all assignment operators can be used
! a.b += c
Legal parse today, though I'm not sure you can get runtime semantics
that aren't an error.
!~a.b++
!(~(a.b++))
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com wrote:
// ! implies non-writable, ~ implies non-enumerable
// all assignment
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
javascript: alert(new InternalError(Got on tha inside, bitch!));
Hrm. seems odd to expose the constructor publicly.
Necessary to permit instanceof testing, no?
The infinite recursion could be detected and reported
On Mar 20, 2011 3:34 PM, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, if you know that a property name is foo, why would you ever code
obj[foo] instead of obj.foo?
The most obvious reason is if the name of the property contains a
character which cannot be an identifier character in the property
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:24 PM, John J. Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com wrote:
Looping as fast as possible is likely to be a bug. It's not similar to
queuing events.
It's the behaviour intentionally (if unwisely) requested by a lot of
animations and games, for what it's worth. There are
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
I agree about outside domain experts. In fact, I wish we could invite
outside domain experts participate in all tc39 activities as we deem
appropriate. I do not understand the rationale for bounding invited expert
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Robert Accettura rob...@accettura.com wrote:
Are there any successful key based encryption schemes that have actually
succeeded with normals?
TLS would be the obvious example, bitlocker and other encrypted file
systems as well. We have hopes for the Firefox
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:14 AM, John-David Dalton
john.david.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
The __proto__ property is a powerful language feature that cannot be
reproduced through any existing part of the language.
Current proposals like,
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:array_create,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, John-David Dalton
john.david.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
@Mike Shaver
For other possible uses please check out:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/scriptjunkie/gg278167
https://github.com/jdalton/fusebox#readme
Those all look like they are needing custom
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
I think so -- my proposal doesn't take instances, nor produce instances, it
takes the constructor function (Image is one of a handful of DOM constructor
that can actually be used to construct things) and returns a new
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, John-David Dalton
john.david.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Ya, some people have that reaction at first, but after use it's not
bad. Most of the time you create a string or value once then pass
around the variable.
Because these sandboxed natives chain, usage is
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:11 PM, John-David Dalton
john.david.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Extending the Object.prototype is a compatibility nightmare
It was a compatibility nightmare when people didn't namespace, and
when you couldn't make non-enumerable properties. Using a namespace
for additions
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:36 AM, David Bruant bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr wrote:
Does it mean that the use strict directive is implicit whenever an
ESHarmony feature is used? (this sounds wrong, but I'm asing the question
anyway)
It means that the semantics of Harmony are based on ES5-strict,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote:
?I have something that annoys me about how JavaScript try/catch error
handling currently works. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why it
works that way, and it makes sense. But having the option to get around that
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Shawn Steele
shawn.ste...@microsoft.com wrote:
I'm still trying to grok word processing in JavaScript (beyond the simple
case)
What's to grok? Microsoft is putting word processors on the web,
even. They don't want to go back to the server for all processing
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Shawn Steele
shawn.ste...@microsoft.com wrote:
I realize what line breaking's for, but I didn't think that would often be
done in JavaScript. You preformat some text in JavaScript?
Yeah, for use in SVG or rendering atop canvas, for example.
Mike
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
In light of the incubation argument and big-ticket items, I don't think value
proxies break our complexity budget but they are very new. They're unlikely
to get into ES6. Let's keep discussing here and working on the
I'd expect that
o = { a : b = 5 }
Was legal now, setting both o.a and b to 5. Not at a shell, is there an
exception in the grammar for assignment expressions in the value position?
{ a = 5 : T } might work, though.
Mike
On Nov 22, 2010 6:09 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com wrote:
On
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
On the harmony:destructuring page
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:destructuring it
specifies this syntax for patterns:
Pattern ::= { (Field (,
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Btw, the current proposal does currently repurpose with for renamings.
Even though there's no syntactic conflict, if we use with instead of
mixin we should choose a different syntax for renamings. Suggestions?
as.
Mike
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, a site may normally concatenate 3rd-party libs with use strict
at the global level. The technique is the same as with forgotten semicolon
-- just to put an empty statement at the beginning of the end
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Mike momentarily forgot what they mean
Yes, it was a lapse from a casual observer reading the conversations
quickly; please don't let my brain-blip harm the sweet naming.
Mike
___
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Erik Corry erik.co...@gmail.com wrote:
And this is as it should be. As it stands the weak map can be used as
an object with private members. The object key acts as a capability
that controls whether or not you have access to the private member.
If I were to
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Erik Corry erik.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely that is the case with WeakMap? At least unless you lost the
key and don't have any other references to the value. In which case
you can't reach the value any more, so why would you care whether it
is kept alive?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
veryLongObjectName.someOtherVeryVeryLongObjectName.ridiculouslyLongFunctionName
(longArgument1, longArgument2, longArgument3, longArgument4,
longArgument5);
Yes. Even in the absence of ASI issues, my inclination
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On 06/02/2010 03:52 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
I'll still maintain that the choice that ECMA 334 takes, namely
that the assignment to b in the example above, makes a mutable
copy is a valid choice.
I would expect
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Kam Kasravi kamkasr...@yahoo.com wrote:
[kam] An example might be something like SVG.*Filter* where the importer was
interested in retrieving only filter related features within a SVG module.
For this, I would rather let the exporter define named export lists,
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
The data is mutable, the length is not -- this is more in line with arrays in
other languages, but more importantly the whole point of the typed array spec
was to provide a compact typed storage mechanism. Allowing the
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jordan Osete jordan.os...@yahoo.fr wrote:
I've been wondering for some time if there couldn't be a way to index arrays
from the last element directly. Currently if you have an array lost in a
deep objects hierarchy, you have to refer to it twice, once to access
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Just as a minor point of technical correction - this will actually alert
not IE in Firefox because the right-hand sign of an assignment is
considered a detecting access. (Just tested to confirm.)
Thank you! I see that I
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Waldemar Horwat walde...@google.com wrote:
No. As I wrote, there is no de-facto implementation order because the
implementations do not agree on the order in general, and what you call
fringes such as numbers do matter. Trying to force, say, insertion order
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
On 10/13/2009 10:54 PM, Luke Smith wrote:
Currently FF3.5.4 doesn't properly apply replacer functions, but Safari
4, WebKit, IE8, and Chrome 3 work fine for this task.
How precisely are replacer functions not properly
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Jim Blandy j...@mozilla.com wrote:
There's one specific kind of contextual information that's being looked at
askance here: knowledge of the expression surrounding the call that invoked
you. Perl lets subroutines check what sort of value their caller is
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Mark S. Millererig...@google.com wrote:
I sincerely applaud this bold stance. If Mozilla proceeds in this manner
successfully, then the present issue becomes a non-concern; as probably do
several more we haven't stumbled across yet. Please let us know what we
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:53 PM, David Semeria da...@lmframework.com wrote:
Ok. I assume object references are implemnted bi-directionally,
otherwise the GC would take a lifetime to run.
I don't know of any that are implemented bidirectionally, since it
would be a waste of space; it's certainly
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com wrote:
Any input from our other Unicode experts would be appreciated...
Here's what I found (running on Windows Vista):
IE, FF, Opera
\u00DF.toUpperCase() returns \u00DF
Same on FF3.1b3 on OS X.
Mike
2009/1/23 Laurens Holst lho...@students.cs.uu.nl:
Hi,
I and a colleague were puzzled by some strange behaviour in Firefox, we
found that in some browsers literal regular expressions are cached and
reused. Testcase:
function test(str) {
var regexp = /^[^d]*\bd{1,4}\b[^d]*$/g;
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Michael Ratcliffe
mich...@ratcliffefamily.org wrote:
Are there any plans to make onerror part of the ECMA standard and, if so, is
it possible
for me to suggest adding an additional item that should be accessible from
the onerror
handler? I would suggest that
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/9/18 Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Redmond mtg is fast approaching. We'd like to put out an official
for-Redmond-mtg draft of the ES3.1 spec by then. I had volunteered to write
the spec for
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Jon Zeppieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any magically bound variable breaks TC. The expression
callee
should have the same meaning as
(function() { return callee; })()
...and it clearly does not.
True, but it doesn't work for arguments or
54 matches
Mail list logo
