On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I'd like to propose the following three alternatives to the
> current proposal:
>
> 1) Remove the feature entirely from ES4 (as part of the "judicious
> feature cuts" process) until a more appropriate syntax i
On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> The optional second argument to make propertyIsEnumerable a setter has
> some practical problems:
>
> 1) It violates the very strong norm that getter and setter functions
> are separate and have their own different arguments. It will make t
>> ES3 has several abstraction mechanisms:
>> * lambda abstraction, which it gets approximately as right as Scheme!
>> * objects as a generalization of records, which has some pros and
>> cons
>> * prototype-based sharing of common behavior, which is used almost
>> exclusively by JavaScript progr
On Mar 10, 2008, at 9:54 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> ES3 has several abstraction mechanisms:
> * lambda abstraction, which it gets approximately as right as Scheme!
> * objects as a generalization of records, which has some pros and cons
> * prototype-based sharing of common behavior, which is used
On Mar 10, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
>> We are the WG. Are you saying that substantive discussions
>> of your proposals are not welcome? Not sure what the point
>> of participating is if that's the case.
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize that "I find it abhorrent" qualified as
> substantiv
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
>
> > intrinsic function propertyIsEnumerable(name: EnumerableId, flag:
> > (boolean|undefined) = undefined): boolean
>
> I too find the second parameter here abhorrent. Please find another way
> to solve it (Brendan's namespace idea maybe) or remove
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Jeff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/10/08 5:40 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> > I'm dealing with a serious insurrection of folks who believe that the ES4
> > working group has a bad attitude, based on Brendan's public comments and
> > responses to issues l
On 3/10/08, Erik Arvidsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are valid use cases for new Function (...) and Function(...).
> One that comes to mind is getting an attribute in DOM and make it into
> an event handler. Yes, the Function constructor and meta::invoke can
> be replaced by eval but F
There are valid use cases for new Function (...) and Function(...).
One that comes to mind is getting an attribute in DOM and make it into
an event handler. Yes, the Function constructor and meta::invoke can
be replaced by eval but Function needs to be there for ES3
compatibility.
On Mon, Mar 10,
On 3/10/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First draft of the spec for the Function class. Please comment.
>
Suggestion: deprecate the Function constructor and static invoke().
Almost all of its uses are better handled by function expressions and,
in those cases where eval() in require
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Jeff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> it would
> be helpful to follow up with possible solutions or at least insight into
> what makes it abhorrent (your word).
FWIW, I also did not grasp the force of the objection, and would like
to understand better.
>
>
Draft 2, changelog near the beginning.
Please note the OPEN ISSUES section, which names two fairly
arbitrary designs in this proposal. Comments welcome.
--lars
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen
> Sent: 5. mars 2008 17:32
On 3/10/08 5:40 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> Lars Hansen wrote:
>> The feature was approved by the WG and solves a practical problem.
>> If another way to solve this practical problem is proposed (in a
>> more structured form than in the ongoing discussion) and finds favor
>> with the WG, then
> -Original Message-
> From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10. mars 2008 19:40
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Object
>
> Lars Hansen wrote:
> > The feature was approved by the WG and solves a practical problem.
> > If another
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen
> Sent: 10. mars 2008 18:46
> To: Erik Arvidsson
> Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
> Subject: RE: ES4 draft: Function
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Erik Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
Lars Hansen wrote:
> The feature was approved by the WG and solves a practical problem.
> If another way to solve this practical problem is proposed (in a
> more structured form than in the ongoing discussion) and finds favor
> with the WG, then fine -- of course we can replace it. Until then,
> t
On 11/03/2008, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I can see this is not a problem in the file I sent out, nor in
> the one I received from the reflector.
>
> What mailer are you using?
Gmail's web interface. And checking, it appears only using the View
link, not the Download link
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waldemar Horwat
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:29 PM
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
> Subject: Re: ES4 draft last call: line continuation in string and
> regexliterals
>
>
Lars Hansen wrote:
>>> The character sequence BACKSLASH (where
>>> will be one of the characters LF, LS, or PS) is
>>> removed from string literals delimited by either single or triple
>>> SINGLEQUOTE or DOUBLEQUOTE characters. (Triple-quoting is
>> defined in
>>> [5].)
>> This states that:
> Waldemar Horwat wrote:
>
> Jeff Dyer wrote:
> > - Phone calls as needed
>
> Is there one tomorrow? There's a blank agenda page for it.
Hearing no objection, the ES4-WG weekly phone calls are suspended until
sufficient need for one arises.
Enjoy your free hour!
Jd
___
As far as I can see this is not a problem in the file I sent out, nor in
the one I received from the reflector.
What mailer are you using?
Anyone else see this?
--lars
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean
> Sent: 10. mars 2008
> -Original Message-
> From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10. mars 2008 18:59
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
> Subject: Re: ES4 draft last call: line continuation in string
> and regex literals
>
> > The character sequence BACKSLASH (where
> > will be
> -Original Message-
> From: Waldemar Horwat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10. mars 2008 18:50
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Object
>
> > intrinsic function propertyIsEnumerable(name: EnumerableId, flag:
> > (boolean|undefined) = undefined)
Jeff Dyer wrote:
> - Phone calls as needed
Is there one tomorrow? There's a blank agenda page for it.
Waldemar
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
> The character sequence BACKSLASH (where
> will be one of the characters LF, LS, or PS) is removed from string literals
> delimited by either single or triple SINGLEQUOTE or DOUBLEQUOTE characters.
> (Triple-quoting is defined in [5].)
This states that:
"abc\\
tde"
evaluates to the string
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean
> Sent: 10. mars 2008 17:52
> To: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Object
>
> On 10/03/2008, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Draft 2 of the spec for the Object class
> intrinsic function propertyIsEnumerable(name: EnumerableId, flag:
> (boolean|undefined) = undefined): boolean
I too find the second parameter here abhorrent. Please find another way to
solve it (Brendan's namespace idea maybe) or remove this feature altogether.
How does property lookup deal
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10. mars 2008 17:31
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
> Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Function
>
> What is the reason to make the thisObj param to bind optional?
Symmetry with call and apply and a consequen
> new Vector. ( length=..., fixed=... )
It would be helpful for readability to have the types here.
> The |Vector| constructor is implementation-defined.
This is misleading. Usually when a standard states that something is
implementation-defined, it means that its semantics are not specified i
On 10/03/2008, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draft 2 of the spec for the Object class. Changelog near the beginning.
The intrinsic toString method returns the concatenation of "[",
"object", the class name of the object, and "]".
There should probably be a whitepace between
Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
>
> > Brendan Eich wrote:
> >> ES3 code can't detect namespaces, so arguably shouldn't care if we
> >> were to implement DontEnum using an open namespace. But this could be
> >> a problem for mixed ES3 and ES4 scenarios where th
What is the reason to make the thisObj param to bind optional?
2008/3/10 Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First draft of the spec for the Function class. Please comment.
>
> --lars
>
> ___
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> htt
On 10/03/2008, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draft 2 of the spec for the Object class. Changelog near the beginning.
The draft HTML seems a little broken. There's … in it early
on, later these appear raw in the source (which displays as an empty
square in Opera and IE8).
And nea
Draft 2 of the spec for the Object class. Changelog near the beginning.
--lars
Title: The class "Object"
The class Object
NAME: "The class 'Object'"
FILE: spec/library/Object.html
CATEGORY: Pre-defined classes (E262-3 Chap
First draft of the spec for the Function class. Please comment.
--lars
Title: The class "Function"
The class Function
NAME: "The class 'Function'"
FILE: spec/library/Function.html
CATEGORY: Pre-defined classes
SOURCES:
35 matches
Mail list logo
