No modes, please. "use strict" was a terrible idea, and I don't want to see that repeating. If you're worrying about typeof, better solution would be to deprecate it; and it's a job for linters, not compilers. 29.07.2014, 23:02, "Christoph Martens" :Hey all, I just read a bit about the ParallelJ
Christoph Martens wrote:
On the other hand that means typeof uint8 won't return a primitive
value, right? Meaning typeof uint8 should return "object", so a
theoretical Polyfill (or binding in my case) should have the prototype
pointing to Object?
That's not decided, and polyfilling uint8 is h
On 29.07.2014 21:20, Brendan Eich wrote:
Christoph Martens wrote:
Also, you could solve the typeof null; problem with such a thing
without invalidating legacy code.
You missed the whole previous lifetime many of us lived :-P.
http://esdiscuss.org/topic/es6-doesn-t-need-opt-in (1JS o.p. -- not
Christoph Martens wrote:
Also, you could solve the typeof null; problem with such a thing
without invalidating legacy code.
You missed the whole previous lifetime many of us lived :-P.
http://esdiscuss.org/topic/es6-doesn-t-need-opt-in (1JS o.p. -- note
that some aspects are out of date)
ht
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Christoph Martens wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I just read a bit about the ParallelJS project, Typed Objects (StructType)
> and was curious if I could implement bindings for v8 today.
>
> Link to wiki document:
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:typed
Hey all,
I just read a bit about the ParallelJS project, Typed Objects
(StructType) and was curious if I could implement bindings for v8 today.
Link to wiki document:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:typed_objects
I realized that I don't know what to do if someone has code li
6 matches
Mail list logo
