> > > - Disable FunctionObject.arguments (not actually in ES3 but
> > > woefully used in practice)
> >
> > This is an interesting one, since disallowing it would mean that
> > the ES3.1 and ES4 specs would have to re-allow it so that they could
> > explicitly disallow it :)
>
> Yes. It's also
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waldemar Horwat
> > - delete o.x when x is not in o but in the proto will throw
>
> Actually delete o.x when x is not an own property on o,
> regardless of whether x in o.
I didn'
Second that notion.
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Nathan de Vries wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 16:56 -0700, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> Firefox uses SpiderMonkey.
>
> I don't get what you mean. Firefox is part of the web, but it's not
> *the* web.
>
> Without being part of a standard such as ES4, Mo
For context, a brief summary of the consensus agreement we reached at
the ES committee meeting:
The EcmaScript Committee will produce two official standards documents:
* An ES3.1 standard, to supercede the ES3 standard
* An ES4 standard
Currently, the ES3 spec as written differs from the de-facto
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 16:56 -0700, Garrett Smith wrote:
> Firefox uses SpiderMonkey.
I don't get what you mean. Firefox is part of the web, but it's not
*the* web.
Without being part of a standard such as ES4, Mozilla's implementation
of Date.prototype.toLocaleFormat() is just yet another Javasc
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waldemar Horwat
> Sent: 31. mars 2008 18:03
> To: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Strict mode recap
>
> Here are the items mentioned for inclusion in strict mode:
>
> - Don't turn a null 'this' val
Here are the items mentioned for inclusion in strict mode:
- Don't turn a null 'this' value into the global object (if non-strict mode in
ES4 doesn't already do this)
- Throw on writes to read-only properties
- Throw on deletes of dontdelete properties
- delete o.x when x is not in o but in the
2008/3/31 Nathan de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 00:39 +0200, Igor Bukanov wrote:
> > Date.prototype.toLocaleFormat(format) in SpiderMonkey provides access
> > exactly to strftime functionality.
>
> As with prior discussion regarding PTC, being "in SpiderMonkey" is
> relat
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 00:39 +0200, Igor Bukanov wrote:
> Date.prototype.toLocaleFormat(format) in SpiderMonkey provides access
> exactly to strftime functionality.
As with prior discussion regarding PTC, being "in SpiderMonkey" is
relatively useless to those of us programming for the web.
Cheers
On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Dyer wrote:
> On 3/31/08 10:33 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
>
>> I disagree that 'enum' should be reserved in ES4. E262-3 ch 16 is
>> explicit in allowing syntactic extensions and it appears that
>> Opera and
>> Firefox do not reserve 'enum', suggesting that 'enum' i
Date.prototype.toLocaleFormat(format) in SpiderMonkey provides access
exactly to strftime functionality.
Regards, Igor
On 31/03/2008, Carl S. Yestrau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
> > Will ES4 have a simple date formatter?
> > ___
On 3/31/08 10:33 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
> I disagree that 'enum' should be reserved in ES4. E262-3 ch 16 is
> explicit in allowing syntactic extensions and it appears that Opera and
> Firefox do not reserve 'enum', suggesting that 'enum' is not in use on
> the public web.
I don't remember why
Garrett Smith wrote:
> Will ES4 have a simple date formatter?
> ___
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
>
strftime would be uber.
___
Es4-discu
It's not clear that 'has' should be removed, but it could be removed for
the time being. The discussion on this list in the past couple of weeks
(Subject: "ES4 draft: Object initializers") indicates that the following
forms should possibly be allowed for catchalls:
{ get() ...,
set() ...,
I agree with Lars (and Mark) on this. It would be best if access to 'this'
would throw. Throwing in the actual call to the function seems a bit harsh
since the statement that refers to 'this' might never be reached. Making
the access throw would allow people to at least catch the error and fall
On 3/31/08 8:12 AM, Eric Suen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does the order of rules means different priority?
The order of the rules has no meaning.
> otherwise why
> PropertyName is same as PrimaryName,
These two symbols have converged with recent changes. The use of
PropertyName in PropertyOperator sh
Hi,
Does the order of rules means different priority? otherwise why
PropertyName is same as PrimaryName, and what is that number before
each rule means?
Regards
Eric Suen
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/l
17 matches
Mail list logo