On 1 June 2012 03:23, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
There is *no* mixing of scope and object lookup in the cascade proposal.
None at all.
You're talking the technical details. I'm talking appearance and
expectation in the eyes of developers.
Just please stop saying that it's like
On 1 June 2012 06:05, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
you're just rehashing a concern based on appearances
which (I want to be clear; sorry for harshing on the 'with' point) is a
valid concern. We should discuss it directly, no 'with'-semantics mixed in.
/be
No, you are not alone.
Mustache and cascade are interesting but maybe not extremely, extremely
usefull.
Then as people have tried since years, I did write too a 'with'-like
proposal in strict mode, I already sent it some time ago and got 0
feedback, maybe I did not present it the right way,
On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:54 AM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
Hey, no stress -- always happy to have input. Just please, no more bogus
comparisons to `with`.
Could we please avoid derogatory terms like bogus? I'm talking about what
people see when they look at code (more below). That's a valid
On 1 June 2012 18:02, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I just take issue with the over-broad analogy to `with`. The problem with
`with` is that it's statically undecidable whether any variable in the body
is bound by the object or by something else in the scope chain.
Yeah, at least,
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 1 June 2012 18:02, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
mailto:dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I just take issue with the over-broad analogy to `with`. The
problem with `with` is that it's statically undecidable whether
any variable in the body is bound by the object
All,
I was going to lurk longer before raising this, and apologies if it's been
raised before, but the discussion of object extension literals sort of
brought it up.
TL;DR: I wonder if the object extension literal might reasonably become a
fit-for-purpose `with`. For years I've thought the
On 31 May 2012 11:33, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
All,
I was going to lurk longer before raising this, and apologies if it's been
raised before, but the discussion of object extension literals sort of
brought it up.
TL;DR: I wonder if the object extension literal might
On 31 May 2012 12:52, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
2. I originally envisioned this as a statement (of course, I was originally
thinking we'd have a new keyword, until the object extension literal
discussion), but it could be an expression; if so, presumably the result of
the
On 31 May 2012 12:12, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote:
On 31 May 2012 12:52, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
2. I originally envisioned this as a statement (of course, I was
originally
thinking we'd have a new keyword, until the object extension literal
On May 31, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
4. The leading dot seems, to me, to be more explicit than just having the
first symbol on the left being implicitly a property the object. EIBTI
I agree with that.
As I said in another thread, it's not going to happen because of the ASI
On 31 May 2012 19:24, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 31, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
4. The leading dot seems, to me, to be more explicit than just having
the
first symbol on the left being implicitly a property the object. EIBTI
I agree with that.
As I
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.comwrote:
On 31 May 2012 19:24, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
As I said in another thread, it's not going to happen because of the ASI
hazard.
Dave
Expand/link? How does this cause an ASI issue (that can't be
On 31 May 2012 22:17, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.comwrote:
On 31 May 2012 19:24, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
As I said in another thread, it's not going to happen because of the ASI
hazard.
Thanks Rick. For lurkers:
o.{
foo() // No semi
.bar() // Is this o.bar()? or .bar() on the result of foo()?
};
I've been following and have read back in the thread, but I'm not seeing a
how .bar() would be allowed?
Point me in the right direction!
Rick
Rick Waldron wrote:
Thanks Rick. For lurkers:
o.{
foo() // No semi
.bar() // Is this o.bar()? or .bar() on the result of foo()?
};
I've been following and have read back in the thread, but I'm not
seeing a how .bar() would be allowed?
In the with example
On 1 June 2012 00:28, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
In the with example that Dave gave:
with (obj) {
foo() // no semi
.bar = 12
}
it's all allowed as in no syntax error (to correct via ASI) and no
restricted production (to make line termination
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 1 June 2012 00:28, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
In the with example that Dave gave:
with (obj) {
foo() // no semi
.bar = 12
}
it's all allowed as in no syntax error (to correct via ASI)
On 1 June 2012 00:51, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Dave's cascade proposal:
http://blog.mozilla.org/**dherman/2011/12/01/now-thats-**a-nice-stache/http://blog.mozilla.org/dherman/2011/12/01/now-thats-a-nice-stache/
Thanks. With a great deal of respect, I'm not seeing how that
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 1 June 2012 00:51, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Dave's cascade proposal:
http://blog.mozilla.org/dherman/2011/12/01/now-thats-a-nice-stache/
Thanks. With a great deal of respect, I'm not seeing how that isn't
with-lite
On 1 June 2012 01:40, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Let's be precise. You keep bringing 'with' up but it's not relevant to the
cascade proposal, going by Dave's definitions. If you have the appearance
of 'with' concern I call out above, let's argue about that. It's a good
one (again
On May 31, 2012, at 5:30 PM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 1 June 2012 00:51, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Dave's cascade proposal:
http://blog.mozilla.org/dherman/2011/12/01/now-thats-a-nice-stache/
Thanks. With a great deal of respect, I'm not seeing how that isn't
with-lite with
On May 31, 2012, at 7:08 PM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 1 June 2012 01:40, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Let's be precise. You keep bringing 'with' up but it's not relevant to the
cascade proposal, going by Dave's definitions. If you have the appearance of
'with' concern I call out
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 1 June 2012 01:40, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Let's be precise. You keep bringing 'with' up but it's not
relevant to the cascade proposal, going by Dave's definitions. If
you have the appearance of 'with' concern I call
David Herman wrote:
Now the cascade:
array.{
pop()
pop()
};
That looks like `with`, it acts like `with`,
No, it doesn't, and it would be really helpful if you would try to
understand why it doesn't.
So the key here is prototype chain vs. scope chain. 'with' extends the
scope
On May 31, 2012, at 9:31 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
This may seem not much of a difference, but it's major not only due to the
typo and array-not-an-Array-instance cases. The scope chain extension is
costly and forces deoptimization in common implementations. And of course
'with' is banned in
On May 31, 2012, at 9:50 PM, David Herman wrote:
...but it could be captured by the `with` object or one of its properties.
s/properties/prototypes/
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On May 31, 2012, at 9:50 PM, David Herman wrote:
Whereas with cascades, you'd get:
var obj = {
log: console.log.bind(console),
foo: function() { Object.prototype.bar = captured }
};
var bar = local variable;
with (obj) {
log(bar); // local variable
Right, that capture-in-prototype case does not differ due to both
cascade desugaring and 'with' searching the head object including its
prototype chain.
But with a deeper scope chain, and bar not bound in the innermost scope,
then 'with' allows an evil interloping function to shadow (or
Brendan Eich wrote:
you're just rehashing a concern based on appearances
which (I want to be clear; sorry for harshing on the 'with' point) is a
valid concern. We should discuss it directly, no 'with'-semantics mixed in.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing
30 matches
Mail list logo
