Re: Proposal: Proxy iteration (`let ... of ...`) trap handler

ctions too costly to fetch in full unless > needed, decycled versions of the regular object for the purpose of > serialization, you name it...). > > >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:32 PM, saam barati <saambara...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The purpose of the itera

Re: Proposal: Proxy iteration (`let ... of ...`) trap handler

The purpose of the iterator protocol is to be flexible and to work well with custom defined iterators. for...of is more or less sugar around the iterator protocol. Not sure why you even need a Proxy to easily customize for...of behavior for arbitrary objects. More documentation on the protocol

Re: Is there a way to run test262 in a browser (and especially in web workers)?

I use: http://v8.github.io/test262/website/default.html Saam > On Mar 17, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > It looks like there used to be a > http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/HTML5/WebWorkerTest262/Default.html but > it's gone. > > There also used to be a

Questions about Proxy.[[OwnPropertyKeys]] and the List type

I’m currently implementing section 9.5.11 of the spec ( https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-proxy-object-internal-methods-and-internal-slots-ownpropertykeys ). Sections 17 and 19 perform the Remove operation on the List type. How is the Remove operation defined? Is it defined to just delete the

Re: Global lexical tier

After reading through past threads and meeting notes, I've changed my opinion. I think the current spec is OK and meets the real needs of programs today. I've ran into real programs that break without the global lexical tier while implementing this inside JavaScriptCore. While I don't think global

Re: Global lexical tier

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about my stated preference that all lexical variables should be local to the program they're defined in. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > saam barati wrote: > >> I think we've also hurt ourselves

Re: Global lexical tier

Thanks. Reading now. I'm clearly bad at email :/ On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:41 PM SaamBarati1 wrote: > >> Hi Allen, >> >> What were the requirements for the global lexical scope? Is it

Re: Global lexical tier

I think a better solution would have been to have all top-level let/const/class variables just be local to that specific Program. That's how I originally implemented it in JavaScriptCore, and now I'm going back and "fixing" it to be as it is defined in the Spec. (That said, I agree that allowing