On 26.10.2010 11:41, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
2010/10/25 Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com mailto:bren...@mozilla.com
On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
2010/10/20 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
Anyway, is
On 27.10.2010 21:15, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 27, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
With the risk of going round the block again... ;-)
Last time for sure. :-|
Acknowledged ;|
I agree with your premises, namely that:
a) `if (!foo.bar) foo.bar = {}` is a common pattern to patch up
2010/10/20 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
(I answer both -- Brendan's and Mark's letters for convenience in here).
On 20.10.2010 21:06, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
2010/10/20 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
Anyway, is there an alternative how [[HasProperty]] can work correctly? I
just though, that it's called by the has hook of a handler, which in turn
can lie of course (i.e. return
On 25.10.2010 23:35, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
2010/10/20 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
(I answer both -- Brendan's and Mark's letters for convenience in
here).
On 20.10.2010 21:06, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I'd like nevertheless to continue the discussion with possible
decisions.
Here is a description of how [[Get]] method can work of a trapping proxy
object (I took the basis from the proxy semantics
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I'd like nevertheless to continue the discussion with possible decisions.
Here is a description of how [[Get]] method can work of a trapping proxy
On 18.10.2010 8:30, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
I understand you are arguing for noSuchMethod in addition to the
existing get trap, and I think we all agree that proxies could support
both get + noSuchMethod.
Yes. At least that already all agree is a progress. I glad to hear it,
since I'm also
On 14.10.2010 22:57, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
... All do work. I.e. any missing property, for you, is a method.
Do whatever you want with it. Call e.g. your noSuchMethod function
inside it.
- Hm, but how can I test whether a some method (or a property)
exists on my object?
On 14.10.2010 4:14, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Also I think now, that what was named as pros, i.e. ability to have
funargs and call/apply invariants, in real, not so pros. Because
users more likely want to catch exactly missing methods (if you
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 14.10.2010 4:14, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Also I think now, that what was named as pros, i.e. ability to have funargs
and call/apply invariants, in real, not so pros. Because
On 14.10.2010 19:38, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 14.10.2010 4:14, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Also I think now, that what was named as pros, i.e. ability to have funargs and
call/apply
On 11.10.2010 18:18, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
In short: the 'get' trap can't distinguish the above two cases. This
is a pity, and I agree it would be useful for 'get' to have that
information sometimes. There has previously been talk on this list of
parameterizing 'get' with an additional flag
On 13.10.2010 23:33, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
Regarding this example with undefined args: I think you agree that
correct check should test `arguments.length` to see whether `args`
is here. However, as I mentioned, it may be more convenient to
separate in own place, i.e. to the
On Oct 13, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
I too. How do you think, would it be good to ask Oliver Hunt this question?
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18058 is resolved WONTFIX.
I have another reply under way that makes a strong case against
__noSuchMethod__ (which I
This is odd, I didn't see the original message you were replying to.
To respond to the question you posed in the syntax for efficient
traits-thread:
Yes, I do. The latest is magic methods directly on objects (possibly you
saw -- http://gist.github.com/617338; I don't know what again with
On 11.10.2010 18:18, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
This is odd, I didn't see the original message you were replying to.
Yes, really odd. It's not the first time when the archive-server looses
letters.
OK, here is original letter sent before (the main question is not in
magic methods directly on
On 11.10.2010 22:45, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
Where this proposal is described? I didn't see it. I'll support
it. Even if the committee won't agree on noSuchMethod, it'd at
least will be great to have a parametrized get. Though, repeat,
IMO, a separated method for this case is
18 matches
Mail list logo
