Le 17 févr. 2014 à 21:25, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com a écrit :
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
But as you point out, I don't think there's any actual behavior
change, since everything washes out to `0` at the end. It's just a
matter of writing a clearer more consistent spec.
Yet in that
Le 17 févr. 2014 à 22:32, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net a écrit :
Allen: I can volunteer to offload some of the work of auditing for
similar cases with default arguments. From a quick read-through, only
`Array#fill` seems to have the same issue. `Array#lastIndexOf` is
written in
I like this refactoring. This doesn't change the spec's behavior;
this would be the first solution proposed in
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2546 which was to rewrite
the spec's non-normative text to make it clear that `end=this.length`
in the signature was describing the behavior
Claude Pache wrote:
But I think that clarity can be improved by avoiding to obscure the intent by
computation details. For my personal polyfill, I have found useful to abstract
out the following steps, used (with slight variations) thrice in
`Array.prototype.copyWithin` and twice in
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a last note. Beyond the philosophical aspect whether arraylikes of
negative length make any sense at all, there is a strong technical issue you
have probably overlooked: For array methods in general, and for the
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
But as you point out, I don't think there's any actual behavior
change, since everything washes out to `0` at the end. It's just a
matter of writing a clearer more consistent spec.
Yet in that light you still have a point, I think. Allen?
/be
On 2/14/2014 11:40 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
I think Scott is requesting this change:
https://gist.github.com/anba/6c75c34c72d4ffaa8de7
Yes, although my proposed diff (in the linked bug) was the shorter,
12. If end
On Feb 17, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
But as you point out, I don't think there's any actual behavior
change, since everything washes out to `0` at the end. It's just a
matter of writing a clearer more consistent spec.
Yet in that light you still have
It's not the same effect, because `lenVal` could be an object with
valueOf/toString/@toPrimitive side-effects.
Point taken. (Although I'm fine with invoking the side effects twice
if you're using `this.length` as a default value, since that would be
'unsurprising' if you are looking at the
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, C. Scott Ananian
ecmascr...@cscott.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
I think Scott is requesting this change:
https://gist.github.com/anba/6c75c34c72d4ffaa8de7
Yes, although my proposed diff (in the linked
For reference: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2546
`Array#copyWithin` has a (non-normative) signature of `(target, start,
end = this.length)`. However, this is slightly misleading because the
spec actually calls `ToLength` on `this.length` and then uses *that*
for the default value
On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:46 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
For reference: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2546
`Array#copyWithin` has a (non-normative) signature of `(target, start,
end = this.length)`. However, this is slightly misleading because the
spec actually calls `ToLength`
On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:46 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
/ For reference:https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2546
//
// `Array#copyWithin` has a (non-normative) signature of `(target, start,
// end = this.length)`. However, this is slightly misleading because the
// spec actually
Le 14 févr. 2014 à 21:46, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net a écrit :
array-likes with negative length
Array-likes with negative length doesn't make sense, or at least it isn't a
useful concept as far as ECMAScript is concerned – as it doesn't make sense to
consider arraylikes of
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.edu wrote:
I think Scott is requesting this change:
https://gist.github.com/anba/6c75c34c72d4ffaa8de7
Yes, although my proposed diff (in the linked bug) was the shorter,
12. If end is undefined, let relativeEnd be
Le 14 févr. 2014 à 23:40, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.net a écrit :
Claude Pache wrote:
Array-likes with negative length doesn't make sense.
`Array.prototype.copyWithin.call({ length: -1 }, ... );`
Call it whatever you like, although I'm always interested in learning
new
16 matches
Mail list logo
