Re: March 28 meeting notes

Mark S. Miller wrote: With such a "yield" prohibited, AFAICT the exceptions in non-rejected programs are "return" and the open question about "var". Did we miss any others? Not that I know of, but why is 'var' at issue? An arrow function is still a function, and function body scopes (hoisted)

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Andreas Rossberg wrote: To me, that seems like a complete roadblock wrt the primary motivation for TCP lambdas. From yesterday's meeting, it seems one of many. Too many, and perhaps it's the clearest roadblock as you suggest, but altogether and due to many fallen stones, the road is blocked.

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Andreas Rossberg wrote: Ah, no, I was thinking of this as still being purely an expression, not extending its meaning to be a declaration. That is, the function name is only visible in the body. I completely agree that all declaration statements should start with a keyword. Ok, I'm with you.

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On 29 March 2012 22:37, Brendan Eich wrote: > Andreas Rossberg wrote: > >> I was thinking, it should be possible to extend arrow syntax to allow an >> optional name? As in: >> >> f(n) => n==0 ? 1 : x * f(n-1) >> > > I know you're not proposing, but this would have to be a separate proposal. I f

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On 29 March 2012 22:26, Brendan Eich wrote: > Andreas Rossberg wrote: > >> For me, the biggest blow against TCP lambda forms in general was Mark's >> observation regarding the incompatibility with 'yield' that you mention in >> the other post. >> > > It seems 'yield' may be a red herring. We all

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Andreas Rossberg wrote: I was thinking, it should be possible to extend arrow syntax to allow an optional name? As in: f(n) => n==0 ? 1 : x * f(n-1) I know you're not proposing, but this would have to be a separate proposal. I fear adding it to arrow function syntax will lose consensus. F

Re: March 28 meeting notes

In order to avoid contributing to the list of "exceptions to TCP for non-rejected programs", we need to reject "yield" in these positions. And it is upwards compatible since arrow functions are new. And as you observe, less confusing. With such a "yield" prohibited, AFAICT the exceptions in non-re

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On 29 March 2012 21:26, Brendan Eich wrote: > Nice. This gives functions some of the oomph of block-lambdas (see > https://gist.github.com/**1677893 from > @wavded [Marc Harter]). However: > > * Requires function declarations, or seems to -- too restrictive (vs.

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Andreas Rossberg wrote: For me, the biggest blow against TCP lambda forms in general was Mark's observation regarding the incompatibility with 'yield' that you mention in the other post. It seems 'yield' may be a red herring. We all forgot that it is contextually defined as a keyword only in

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Andreas Rossberg wrote: Dave did: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:return_to_label It did not seem to be headed for consensus and inclusion in harmony:proposals when we last discussed it. Interesting. But this is different from what I had in mind. It is more l

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On 29 March 2012 20:35, Brendan Eich wrote: > Andreas Rossberg wrote: > > On 29 March 2012 16:11, Brendan Eich > bren...@mozilla.org>> wrote: >> >>Yesterday, Luke made a stronger point: TCP 'return' means async >>callbacks (e.g. promise when functions) must be written ML-style, >>wit

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Russell Leggett wrote: > >> Any discussion on maximal minimal classes? Just curious of the status. >> > > Was not on yesterday's agenda. Thanks. I'll just keep an eye open. - Russ > > > /be > _

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Russell Leggett wrote: Any discussion on maximal minimal classes? Just curious of the status. Was not on yesterday's agenda. /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Andreas Rossberg wrote: On 29 March 2012 16:11, Brendan Eich > wrote: Yesterday, Luke made a stronger point: TCP 'return' means async callbacks (e.g. promise when functions) must be written ML-style, with return value in tail position. Callbacks can be len

Re: March 28 meeting notes

For me it was a tradeoff. I prefer consistency. The treatment of 'this' was done TCP-style, so I'd have preferred for the other language constructs to also behave TCP-style. However, practical gotchas begin to form: - yield cannot be done TCP-style within the framework of what we're doing. - what

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > Bigger question: It sounds like TCP was sacrificed in favor of maximal > minimalism, which makes sense. No, maximal minimalism is not our universal principle for ES6. It's important for classes, for various reasons, but it's not our approac

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Erik Corry wrote: > 2012/3/29 Waldemar Horwat : >> Wild debate. >> Poll of who objects to which problem in the proposal: >> 1.  AWB, MM, AR, AR, LH, DC, WH, DH >> 2.  AWB, MM, AR, AR, LH, BE, DC, WH, DH >> 3.  AR, AR, LH, DC, BE >> 5.  AWB, MM, AR, AR, LH, BE, DC,

Re: March 28 meeting notes

On 29 March 2012 16:11, Brendan Eich wrote: > There was a lengthy discussion of what "TCP" means. JS has statements as > well as expressions, it's the C curse by way of "make it look like Java". > So adding a TCP lambda form now, however good for macros, compiler writers, > and certain users of t

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Any discussion on maximal minimal classes? Just curious of the status. - Russ On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: > Here are my rough notes from today's meeting. > > Waldemar > > - > IPR discussion > Intel changed their ECMAScript patent declaration to RANDZ. > Now th

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Domenic Denicola wrote: Minor question: There are no examples of "very empty" arrow functions, e.g. `=>` or `=> 5`. And from what I can tell reading the grammar , they are not allowed. They were allowed in the grammar I wrote -- see the wiki history. Several TC39ers reacted badly to them yeste

RE: March 28 meeting notes

On Behalf Of Brendan Eich Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 02:30 To: Waldemar Horwat Cc: es-discuss Subject: Re: March 28 meeting notes Waldemar Horwat wrote: > Consensus on: > - Have only one arrow, namely => > - this is always static. No provision for dynamic this. > - Other than t

Re: March 28 meeting notes

Waldemar Horwat wrote: Consensus on: - Have only one arrow, namely => - this is always static. No provision for dynamic this. - Other than the treatment of this, the function behaves like a normal function. return, break, etc. behave as though the function body were in a function(...){...}. To

March 28 meeting notes

Here are my rough notes from today's meeting.     Waldemar - IPR discussion Intel changed their ECMAScript patent declaration to RANDZ. Now they wonder why no one else made a RANDZ declaration. Istvan described the history. Mozilla is also unhappy with the current state of affairs.  Even thou