Just a quick one.
I think the best representation in ES3 or 5 would be the following
```javascript
function foo(x, y, z) {
switch(arguments.length) {
case 0: x = 1;
case 1: y = 2;
case 2: z = 3;
}
// whatever logic involved, i.e.
return x + y + z;
}
```
no break and no default
I see. Does `null` count as undefined too or it must be explicitly
undefined ? not that using a transpiler this matters much ... just curious
about how the ES < 6 will look like.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> No, we are using undefined actual parameter value, not argume
I need to read everything Brendan suggested but if anyone would be so kind
to refresh my memories on this arrow function I'd appreciate that. I don't
need much more than yes/no as answer, thanks.
1. `var o = {method: () => this};` will o.method() return o ? (I guess
nope)
Considering the follow
Apologies for the off topic, I swear I thought I opened a new thread for
that so here again my post. Thanks
- - - - - - - - - -
I need to read everything Brendan suggested but if anyone would be so kind
to refresh my memories on this arrow function I'd appreciate that. I don't
need much more than
oops, it wasn't intentional. I should have checked ... opened a new one.
br
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Thread-hijacking is poor form.
>
> /be
>
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/lis
f JS specs available since every then
we need a fat arrow to break old syntax to make the creation of self bound
function easier.
This would be already an answer so thanks for participating.
br
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Andr
Since every => Since ever
Sent from my Windows Phone
--
From: Andrea Giammarchi
Sent: 10/1/2013 7:35 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: what kind of problem is this fat arrow feature trying to solve
?
setTimeout accept extra argume
t wrote:
> Le 02/10/2013 04:35, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
> setTimeout accept extra arguments ... I write JavaScript that uses this
>> feature.
>>
>> `setTimeout(callback, delay, arg1, arg2, argN, evenAnObject);`
>>
> What is "evenAnObject"? I
could be for mostly all their DOM based tasks and why not, even
more.
Best Regards
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> wrote:
> > setTimeout accept extra arguments ... I write JavaScript that uses this
&
pletely different beasts and there was my question about what is
solving for the real world.
No need to talk about use strict.
Thanks
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
>> fat arrow does not add any capabilities but create the need to be
nal way. And yes, I used more handleEvent for that reason.
>
> Benoit
>
> EOn Oct 2, 2013, at 10:55, Andrea Giammarchi
> wrote:
>
> fat arrow does not add any capabilities but create the need to be sure
> about the context.
>
> In use strict fat arrow will bring a lovely
incoherently flattens some of my words with leading '> '
> citation prefixes. But I'll be brief here, no need to reply:
>
>
> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
>> In CoffeeScript the fat arrow behaves differently having a dynamic this,
>> am I correct?
>>
>
> Not only does it reduce the amount of typing, which makes it easy to fit
> all these examples into a single line, it takes care of the this variable,
> which is used in a lot more places than DOM event handlers.
>
> Marius Gundersen
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:14 PM,
in line
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 02/10/2013 19:45, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
>
> Yes, only for these particular examples.
>
Tab mentioned Array extras, that's the reason I've put them in the plate.
Promises ... never used the
any
> native dom event handlers, so your trick with the eventHandler method won't
> work. And we use pubsub, which affect observables on the `this` object, and
> Ajax is handled through Promises, which also needs access to the `this`
> object.
>
> Marius Gundersen
> On Oct
t
> bind(this) in DOM, node, etc and will replace it as previously mentioned by
> the fat arrow when available.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aymeric
>
> Le 02/10/2013 20:11, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
> You need to be sure about the `this` because today you can `bind(anyObject
>
dan Eich wrote:
> Andrea Giammarchi
> <mailto:andrea.giammarchi@**gmail.com
>> >
>> October 2, 2013 2:25 PM
>>
>> Thanks. And do "we" know which one is the most common case or any reason
>> we won't have the same in ES6 ? I see both options
objects to
> avoid adding similar APIs under a different name.
>
> Benoit
>
> On Oct 2, 2013, at 19:18, Andrea Giammarchi
> wrote:
>
> It's a knockout choice I would say, nothing to do with the fact you cannot
> have an `handleEvent` in there.
>
> Look at [eddy
this is the closest to specs we have today:
https://github.com/WebReflection/object-mixin#object-mixin
it does copy all own descriptors so it's suitable for almost everything you
need but `Symbols` (in any case absent in ES5)
That being said, it will be compatible with my `Symbol`
proposal/shim/p
.html#sec-object.mixin
>
> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> this is the closest to specs we have today:
> https://github.com/WebReflection/object-mixin#object-mixin
>
> it does copy all own descriptors so it's suitable for almost everything
> you need but `Symbols` (in any c
looks like Douglas C. website put in PDF ... I guess that's good for
backward compatibility :-)
Thanks for the heads up, JSON FTW!
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> The Ecma General Assembly has approved by letter ballot Ecma-404: THE JSON
> Data Interchange Formal
> S
You are confining the problem in HTTP only scenarios while the solution
provided by
can be handy/reused in offline packaged applications too so HTTP 2 might
win on HTTP but it's not a general HTML App packaging option.
I think FirefoxOS Apps might have something similar without even bothering
t
As I've said, you keep confining the problem and the solution over HTTP and
servers while I see this approach, maybe slightly revisited, a good
**generic bundling** solution even without a server and easily adoptable
now plus this will not mean HTTP 2 won't be handy to help with this case
too.
The
roach
proposed as standard alternative? I prefer the manifest too, for what is
worth it, but if not standard, I would not consider it.
Best Regards
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 11/10/2013 19:01, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
> As I've said, you
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> However, Russell's counter-argument that fallback in older browsers to
> loading lots of little files, request by request, from the server directory
> hierarchy, may be too painful, reducing the value as a migration technique.
>
this is w
g-together
solution (that I agreed shouldn't have been discussed here since here we
talk about ECMAScript only :D)
Ph well, it was good to dream for few hours :-)
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2013 4:40 AM, "Andrea Giammarchi"
>
ich wrote:
> Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2013, at 03:53, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Andrea Giammarchi<
>>>> andrea.giammarchi@**gmail.com >>> andrea.giammarchi@*
IIRC roundtrip happens once per domain so your math is a bit off.
However, I've solved that using a single js Object with all modules
packed as strings and parsed at require time once to avoid huge
overhead by parsing everything at once. The name is require-client and
once gzipped gives similar adv
the module, if interested:
https://github.com/WebReflection/require_client#require_client
Best Regards
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIRC roundtrip happens once per domain so your math is a bit off.
> However, I've
objects where once again
`{"__proto__":[]}` will behave as named property instead of prototype
mutator.
I hope these answers are OK and to all others, please correct me whenever
you think whatever I've written is wrong.
Best Regards,
Andrea Giammarchi
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, it's hard to search in this mailing list but luckily not everyone in
> here will tell you not to be "that guy that clearly didn't read anything
> and is just annoyi
it's not multiplied 500 ... that's what I've
meant :-)
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
> On 14/10/2013, at 18:47, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> > IIRC roundtrip happens once per domain so your math is a bit off.
>
>
some time for extra
clarification.
Cheers
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> __Current Status__
>
>
> (Thanks for the dunders! :-P)
>
>
> Instead of formalizing its form, ES6 accepted `Object.setPrototypeOf` as
&g
this? This is just like the `delete` operator.
>
> The object creation case and getPrototypeOf make a lot of sense but
> mutating __proto__ _after_ an object has been created sounds like a
> horrible broken approach that shoots behavioral typing in the foot.
> Especially when I'm
s
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Andrea Giammarchi
> <mailto:andrea.giammarchi@**gmail.com
>> >
>> October 14, 2013 1:32 PM
>>
>> I meant that IIRC `obj["__proto__"]` should not invoke that Annex B
>> specified getter
`JSON` serialization <= `JSON` parse
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then I might have confused what decided with `JSON` serialization where
> `"__proto__"` will be a property and not a setter, neither a g
_ as the literal property name does assign (set) not a
> define.
>
> 3. Annex B.2.2.1 defines an accessor on Object.prototype, which if
> unshadowed will be got or set when used by name on objects that actually
> delegate to Object.prototype. It's also delete-able (configurable),
>
Inline, from the Moon
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>
> What I meant with round-trip latency is: once the connection has been
> established
I was talking about this latency, those 500ms in my example
> , a network packet takes almost 250 ms to go
while my 100ms per
wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> > my last memories on the topic are these:
> >
> > ```javascript
> >
> > var obj = JSON.parse('{"__proto__":[]}');
> > obj instanceof Array; // false
> > obj._
we are lucky enough there's no browser without a native JSON object that
uses the D. Crockford polyfill ^_^
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> Allen my confusion is with o4 ... what happens once you
an example code
how it is simulating the `Object.defineProperty`
Thanks anyway for clarifications.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> we are lucky enough there's no browser without a native JSON object that
> uses the D. Cro
not if you parsed that object via `JSON.parse('{"__proto__":[]}')`
in this case is the equivalent of that operation through
`Object.defineProperty({}, '__proto__', {enumerable: true, writable: true,
configurable: true})` so that `obj.__proto__` will result into property
assignment and no setter in
oh, that's cute :D
too bad I cannot shim/polyfill that in my `Object.mixin` module.
I would simply *red-flag* it and discourage the usage of `__proto__`
everywhere is possible (uhm wait ... I've already done that in the past,
never mind ... )
Happy `__dunder__` Everybody,
Cheers
On Tue, Oc
wait ... what ?
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Russell Leggett
wrote:
>
>
> obj::fun(a,b) is not the same as fun(obj,a,b). Its fun.call(obj,a,b).
>
isn't this basically the equivalent of obj->fun then ? (yes, the other
arrow that was an arrow too far)
Thanks for clarification
___
uhm, never mind, I got it now. Borrowing functions avoiding call/apply
looks good.
Best Regards
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wait ... what ?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Russell Leggett <
> russell.
yeah, if you use an alias L the footgun image comes upside down too
```
L.__proto__ = null;
// later on, in ES6
L.__proto__ => () pew, pew;
```
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
>>
>>>
I stopped here
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum <
ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ```
> myString.split(/ |-|\/|\+/g); // this is no fun to read
>
> myString.split(" ","-","/","+"); // this is easier
> myString.split([" ","-","/","+"]); // this is also easier.
also, this is the same:
`myString.split(/[ -/+]/)`
maybe it's better to explain those users that knowing RegExp might bring
benefits for their purpose (coding) ?
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I stopped here
>
&
typo: Non "highly trained professionals" should *do* simple things
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How could change 12+ years of legacy be considered inexpensive ?
>
> Non "highly trained professionals&q
ght ;-)
(not directed to you and I am sure you got what I mean)
Obviously this is just my personal opinion.
Cheers
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum <
ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giamma
your array in there follow Brendan hint and create your own method.
Once again, just my 2 cents
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum <
ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wr
here, really).
Feel free to propose a new method ;-)
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It does break in many ways as also Brendan said.
>
> `''.split(what, ever)`
>
> would break
>
> plus
>
> `"so
+1 for the simplified `at(symbolIndex)`
I would expect '𝌆'.at(1) to fail same way 'a'.charAt(1) or
'a'.charCodeAt(1) would.
I would expect '𝌆'.at(symbolIndex) to behave as `length` does based on
unique symbol (unicode extra) so that everyone, except RAM and CPU, will
have life easier with strings
"the size of that unicode string is 1" ... meaning the **virtual** size for
human eyes
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the simplified `at(symbolIndex)`
>
> I would expect '𝌆'.at(1) to
if this is true then .at(symbolIndex) should be a no-brain ?
```
var virtualLength = 0;
for (var x of "💩") {
virtualLength++;
}
// equivalent of
for(var i = 0; i < virtualLength; i++) {
"💩".at(i);
}
```
Am I missing something ?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> if this is true then .at(symbolIndex) should be a no-brain ?
>
> ```
> var virtualLength = 0;
> for (var x of "💩") {
> virtualLength++;
> }
>
> // equivalent of
> for(var i = 0; i < virtua
If I understand Allen answer looks like `Array.from(“💩&💩”).length` would
do, being 3, and making the operation straight forward?
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:12, Andrea Giammarchi
> wrote:
>
> > so my counter-qu
so it's a for/of with a break when it finds a code point? if that's the
only use case I'd like to have an example of how convenient it is. I am
just wondering, not saying is not useful (trying to understand
when/where/why I'd like to use .at())
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Mathias By
here again dunder keyword ^_^
As it is Object.assign does not bring any benefit over
```javascript
for(var key in source) {
target[key] = source[key];
}
```
except former pattern can easily filter undesired properties such
```javascript
for(var key in source) {
if (key != '__proto__') {
AFAIK that's also what Allen said didn't want to implement in core. An
expensive operation per each invocation due stateless loop over arbitrary
indexes.
Although, strings are immutable in JS so I'd implement that logic creating
a snapshot once and use that as if it was an Array ... something like
example mroe readable and with some typo fixed in github:
https://gist.github.com/WebReflection/7059536
license wtfpl v2 http://www.wtfpl.net/txt/copying/
Cheers
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> AFAIK that's also w
a nested loop might be a concrete case where `O(n)` happens ... not so
common with strings but quite possibly used in many parsers implemented in
JS itself.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> The use case that we don't support well is any sort
wouldn't events better suit and better solve the problem ?
fetchUri("http://someauthority.com/";).on('load', response => {
repsonse.heders() });
at least this is how it works in eddy.js and I've never had silent errors
in current specs would be an addEventListener() within the XHR object
On
Kevin I have no idea which library you are using but if you do this:
```
fetchUri("http://someauthority.com/";).then(response => {
for (let header of repsonse.heders) // Note the misspelling!
console.log(header.key, header.value);
}).then(Object, function error(e) {
As sanity/integrity check, `Object.assign` should be something like this to
me ...
```javascript
for (var property in source) {
if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(source, key)) {
if (key in target) {
Object.defineProperty(
target, key,
Object.getOwnPropertyDescri
just one thought on this ...
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
> It may be beneficial, in the long run, to make it painful to use
> __proto__.
>
proto made IE life painful until now and TC39 decided to leave it in specs
... IE11 had to adopt it to not be left behind 'cause
Ilya ... just to re-clarify what was the discussion about: Generic Bundling
... not HTTP Bundling.
I don't know why many keep coupling and confining HTML5 over HTTP and
nothing else.
Bundling as you do with executables or apps, bundling as you send a single
file update for your customer to replac
other programming langauge has one and working without HTTP in
the middle? Without servers? Without an internet connection ?
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Ilya Grigorik wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
&g
belongs to es-discuss? Did I miss
> something?
>
>
>
> *De :* Andrea Giammarchi
> *Envoyé :* samedi 26 octobre 2013 22:15
> *À :* 'Ilya Grigorik'
> *Cc :* es-discuss
>
> Is it possible to not put HTTP in the middle of your thoughts?
>
> Why is **n
This is promoting a fix in the `Object.prototype` ... and since I believe
those dark days where `Object.prototype` shouldn't be touched due for/in
loops, I like it ^_^
Or maybe it's just a matter of `Arguments.prototype` , the most common non
iterable always converted via slice?
On Wed, Oct 30,
* are gone
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is promoting a fix in the `Object.prototype` ... and since I believe
> those dark days where `Object.prototype` shouldn't be touched due for/in
> loops, I like it ^
I think the question is legit and this is a weak check
`'throw' in possibleGenerator`
specially if you have Dictionary like objects around ...
'length' in object does not tell you much, does it?
`Object.prototype.toString` is abused all over client/server
libraries/utilities since ducks sometim
master/src/circular-json.js#L108
Just one case, still `instanceof` is used a lot and usually for good
reasons, not because we are all bad developers (I hope ...)
Cheers
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
irfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> Sorry, secure was actually "reliable", as being secure about the type, not
> about security itself.
>
> A case where I do use instanceof is, example, with new String to easily
> decide late
e:
>
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> wrote:
>
> > Allen, in which place on current known universe, when you parse a
> JSON.string, your reviver function receives objects from another realm,
> exactly?
> Please try to keep the discourse polite.
2013 at 11:07 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, so Allen asked me a real case to show, and I've done it. Now you
> please show me a real case when you pass a revival function to `JSON.parse`
> that is from another realm, explaining why, as I
I have no idea who is doing that and why but yes, in that case I would
never have used instanceof so my example is still valid as use case itself.
Cheers
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> wrote:
>
> als
Allen I think we all agree duck typing is more flexible, powerful, easy,
etc etc ... but since you mentioned, how would do distinguish between a
`Map` and a `WeakMap` without passing through the branding check ?
That's a very good example indeed, `'has' in obj` or `'set' in obj` does
not grant you
Thanks Mark,
so how is anyone supposed to be sure about or check a Brand in ES6 then?
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Allen I think we
I would rather think about a smart syntax able to tell the function it
should expose arguments as it was before.
`function splice:arguments(start, deleteCount, ...items)`
or
`function splice:args(start, deleteCount, ...items)`
or anything different that looks reasonable ? Or maybe not useful at
fwiw, I have few APIs that use null or undefined / void 0 as explicit
action to remove an item ... an example.
```javascript
function cookie(key, value) {
if (arguments.length === 1) return get(key);
if (value == null) return del(key);
set(key, value);
return value;
}
```
Although I wou
Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM, David Bruant wrote:
>>
>>> Le 10/11/2013 22:19, Brendan Eich a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>>>>> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No
easy as that.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think I've completely missed the `undefined === absent` conversation ...
> so if I have an objec
ld have an `arguments.length === 0` unless I've
misunderstood this part of the thread (which might be as well)
I won't re-quote the part in any case and if I misunderstood then all good
and thanks.
Cheers
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Andrea Giammarchi wrote
Nice script indeed, and it would be very nice to somehow be able to flag
that module for production/performance reason where slower engines in
slower hardware are not penalized much if the native implementation is not
in place.
Something that acts almost transparently, if that makes sense at all.
if it's about experimenting then `with(TypedObject) {}` would do :P
Any chance there will be a way to bypass most of the stuff for production?
Thanks
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 02:04:57PM +0100, Till Schneidereit wrote:
> > The strawman at
a simplified version for production
that does not do everything as full-specs native would do?
I hope this is more clear, thanks for any answer.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:46:30AM -0800, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> > if it's abo
or further answers, if any.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe one of the benefits on having Typed Objects is to have more
> performant objects and collections of objects, as structs have been since
> basically ever
the way I've solved that a while ago (
https://code.google.com/p/formaldehyde/source/browse/trunk/formaldehyde.js )
`(ServerError.prototype = new Error).name = "ServerError";`
Today I would do
```javascript
function ServerError(message) {
this.message = '' + message;
}
ServerError.prototype =
Reading this:
http://esdiscuss.org/topic/november-19-2013-meeting-notes#content-6
I was wondering if anyone would be so kind to provide a concrete/real-world
use case for toMethod() since I am having hard time to imagine a scenario
where a super can be so easily invoked, being (AFAIK) multiple inh
13, at 7:51 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> Reading this:
> http://esdiscuss.org/topic/november-19-2013-meeting-notes#content-6
>
> I was wondering if anyone would be so kind to provide a
> concrete/real-world use case for toMethod() since I am having hard time to
> imagine a scen
toMethod is needed/wanted/desired
instead of static/explicit super.method calls.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
>> Thanks Allen but you mentioned `Object.mixin` twice while this has been
>> abandoned
>>
>
> No, def
> people have such an emotional attachment to their conception of what the
> word "mixin" means and it causes reactions like this. In that sense, I'm
> glad it's gone from ES6.
>
>
> ----------
> *From:* es-discuss on behalf of Andrea
&
what do TypeScript folks think about this?
To me it looks like I can drop the polyfill (1) until a meaningful
`toMethod` exists in ES5
Reading through, I missed the part the super binding could have been
redefined in any case.
I still will very appreciate an example ... maybe even an abstract on
ne that I don't get ... I can use
toMethod for something that will simply break or not behave as expected,
while what I'd like to do is to be sure that the Map method is used and
nothing else.
Thanks
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2013,
In webkit nightly not even the getter gets invoked.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, felix wrote:
> If I define a setter for Array.prototype[0], does [].push invoke that
> setter?
>
> Test code:
>
>
>
> Object.defineProperty(
>Array.prototype, 0,
>{ get : function() { alert('get 0');
rue,
configurable : false });
a.length = 0;
a.push = [].push;
alert('before push a[0] = ' + a[0]);
a.push(44);
alert('after push a[0] = ' + a[0]);
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In webkit nightly not even t
memory/performances improved as
possible for mobile.
What do you think ?
Best Regards,
Andrea Giammarchi
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> FWIW: I’ve blogged about this.
> http://www.2ality.com/2011/10/enums.html
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 19:03 , Allen
return keys(this).map(mapSymbolValue, this);
}
});
// exports
exports.Enum = Enum;
exports.Symbol = Symbol;
}(Object, typeof exports == "undefined" ? this["enum"] = {} : exports));
Best Regards,
Andrea Giammarchi
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:53
demonstrated here indeed:
http://jsperf.com/array-extras-second-argument
on average, closures plus scope lookup looks always slower but I'll add more
tests.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>
> > that = this:
> > - Your
801 - 900 of 1636 matches
Mail list logo
