Hi,
I'm currently exploring the code, as a preliminary to writing a static
analysis tool. At the moment, I'm stuck in the lexer, where I have two
questions.
Firstly, embedded comments seem to be forbidden. That is, a block such
as
/* bla /* more bla */ even more bla*/
will be pa
On 6/25/07, Kris Zyp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering how toJSONString should handle objects with members of
> multiple namespaces?
> For example:
> namespace N1
> obj = {};
> obj.public::a=1
> obj.N1::b=2
> obj.toJSONString() -> ?
> Would toJSONString simply not be able to serialize in
On 7/30/07, David Teller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm currently exploring the code, as a preliminary to writing a static
> analysis tool. At the moment, I'm stuck in the lexer, where I have two
> questions.
>
> Firstly, embedded comments seem to be forbidden. That is, a block s
On 6/6/07, Kris Zyp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be possible to add a property attribute "transient"? It would not
> need any special treatment, it would serve purely as a marker. Java has this
> as a property attribute/field modifier, and it is very helpful for defining
> what fields shou
On 5/23/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 16, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Lars T Hansen wrote:
>
> > Ah. No, we've not talked about doing that, and you don't get to set a
> > bit on the Date object that says "the time does not matter". I
> > suppose you could, but I don't (yet) know wh
On 7/25/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lars T Hansen-2 wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/25/07, Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> I see this as two issues.
> > >>
> > >> 1) The need for Collections/Data Structures.
> > >> 2) T
The transient property is not just for JSON serialization, but gives an
abstracting indication of transience that is important for any future
persistence, serialization, or mapping mechanisms (which could include
libraries or future language additions).
Thanks,
Kris
On 7/30/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMA
>
> The agreement is that default JSON serialization will discard the
> namespace (in the same way it currently discards eg function objects).
Sounds good, howevere is there any difference in the treatment of open and
closed namespaces in regards to inclusion of properties? Is there any
strategie
On 7/30/07, Kris Zyp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The agreement is that default JSON serialization will discard the
> > namespace (in the same way it currently discards eg function objects).
>
> Sounds good, howevere is there any difference in the treatment of open and
> closed namespaces in reg
On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> [overquoting deleted]
> var stuff = new HashTable.();
>
> stuff.add( "one", 1 );
s/add/put/
> stuff.hasOwnProperty( "one" ); // false.
> stuff.one;// undefined.
> "one" in stuff; // false.
Right.
> if( "one" in stuff.keys ) stuff.get( "one"
So, what the spec meant to say is: If the compiler writer can think
of an optimization that will save time or space and not break the
semantics of Javascript, they are permitted to make that
optimization. :)
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss
11 matches
Mail list logo
