Recent relevant discussion on test262:
https://github.com/tc39/test262/issues/28#issuecomment-34880787
Rick
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Andy Wingo wrote:
On Wed 12 Feb 2014 15:55, Brendan Eich writes:
> Andy Wingo wrote:
>> On Wed 12 Feb 2014 15:22, Thaddee Tyl writes:
>>
>>> >The following ES6 code's behaviour puzzled a few developers I know.
>>> >The results indicated below each snippet are run through
>>> >
On Wed 12 Feb 2014 15:55, Brendan Eich writes:
> Andy Wingo wrote:
>> On Wed 12 Feb 2014 15:22, Thaddee Tyl writes:
>>
>>> > The following ES6 code's behaviour puzzled a few developers I know.
>>> > The results indicated below each snippet are run through
>>> > SpiderMonkey's implementation.
Andy Wingo wrote:
On Wed 12 Feb 2014 15:22, Thaddee Tyl writes:
> The following ES6 code's behaviour puzzled a few developers I know.
> The results indicated below each snippet are run through
> SpiderMonkey's implementation.
SpiderMonkey's implementation of for-let is out of date, AFAIK.
On Wed 12 Feb 2014 15:22, Thaddee Tyl writes:
> The following ES6 code's behaviour puzzled a few developers I know.
> The results indicated below each snippet are run through
> SpiderMonkey's implementation.
SpiderMonkey's implementation of for-let is out of date, AFAIK. I
couldn't find a bug a
The following ES6 code's behaviour puzzled a few developers I know.
The results indicated below each snippet are run through
SpiderMonkey's implementation.
It is related to 13.6.3.2. I believe the wording of the current draft
leaves the interaction with closures open to interpretation.
for (l
6 matches
Mail list logo