On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
We've been down this road before, and the arguments you present
have been hashed out over years. This approach doesn't work. Read
the archives of the ES4 group.
Specifically, from the March 2008 meeting:
* ES3.1 and ES4 will both allow
We've been down this road before, and the arguments you present have been
hashed out over years. This approach doesn't work. Read the archives of the
ES4 group.
The problem is that you then get a plethora of ways to define things:
var
const
function
type
namespace
let
let const
let function
l
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:28 PM
> ...
>> You're prev response seems to have come from t
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You're prev response seems to have come from the discussion of
>> Object.create.
>
> No? We've been discussing the viability of a new Object.extend() method to be
> introduced in ES3.1.
The title of the thread is "object
> -Original Message-
> From: Garrett Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:31 AM
...
> >
> > Neither Object.create nor Object.clone was not intended to be a
> directly replacement for Object.extend.
>
Make that:
Neither Object.create or Object.clone were
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:28 PM
...
> You're prev response seems to have come from the discussion of
> Object.create. Object.create, with only one argument, is the same
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es4-discuss-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Resig
>
> No? We've been discussing the viability of a new Object.extend() method
> to be introduced in ES3.1. Mozilla has offered a proposal and is
> looking to implement it in SpiderM
> You're prev response seems to have come from the discussion of
> Object.create.
No? We've been discussing the viability of a new Object.extend() method to be
introduced in ES3.1. Mozilla has offered a proposal and is looking to implement
it in SpiderMonkey. I provided examples of Object.exte
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> 1) It seems like Object.clone as you have described it is not suitable
> for the "mixin" type use case where an object gets properties/methods
> from
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not true. YAHOO.lang.extend uses prototypal inheritance.
>
> YAHOO.lang.extend is similar in name only - YAHOO.lang.augmentObject is the
> one that's actually similar to the functionality used by other code bases.
>
You'
> Not true. YAHOO.lang.extend uses prototypal inheritance.
YAHOO.lang.extend is similar in name only - YAHOO.lang.augmentObject is the one
that's actually similar to the functionality used by other code bases.
--John
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-d
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> Thanks for pulling together all the various versions of Object.extend.
Not all.
> It's useful to have them in one place.
>
> There are a couple of things you mentioned that I wanted to clarify.
>
> Neither O
2008/7/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We ultimately concluded that the best way to think about what we are
> currently provide is that it is a set of primitive mechanisms that could be
> used to build higher level reflection facilities. If we had a strong use case
> we could reintro
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> We ultimately concluded that the best way to think about what we
> are currently provide is that it is a set of primitive mechanisms
> that could be used to build higher level reflection facilities. If
> we had a strong use case we coul
Object.getProperties and Object.getOwnProperties were part of the early design
of thiss set of functions. See for example, the June 24 draft at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft
I proposed removing them, because I felt that they were starting to impinge
2008/7/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Collectively,
> getOwnProperty,defineProperties/defineProperty,getOwnPropertyNames,getPrototypeOf
> are intended to provide all the mechanisms necessary to build any of these
> variants to extent or any other model of property manipulation using
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> Object.create's heritage is Doug Crockford's beget function and its primary
> purpose is to provide a more direct way to create an object with an
> explicitly specified prototype.
I think the name Object.createHeir would clarify its use better.
--
Ingvar von Schoult
John,
Thanks for pulling together all the various versions of Object.extend. It's
useful to have them in one place.
There are a couple of things you mentioned that I wanted to clarify.
Neither Object.create nor Object.clone was not intended to be a directly
replacement for Object.extend. The
18 matches
Mail list logo
