On 3/9/08, Michael Daumling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that adding backtrace information is overkill for the spec.
> Collecting this information should be left to a debugging environment.
>
> What I would suggest is something along the following lines. It should
> be made clear that th
On 3/8/08, zwetan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> do I understand well that E4X will be removed from ES4 ???
It was never in ES4 to begin with.
--lars
> this is so wrong i can not even believe it...
>
> try to parse XML in .NET/Java/PHP/whatever...
> the ONLY elegant and straightforward way to
The spec is normative. The RI is informative. (It will presumably
have to commit to some things that the spec need not commit to, even
if its something as relatively trivial as the precise workings of the
random number generator.)
--lars
On 3/6/08, Michael O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I
ry floating point.
Decimal floating point has more.
Maybe the confusion is regarding "rounding to selected precision" vs
"rounding to integer". I'm talking about the former.
--lars
>
>
> On 2008-03-06, at 09:08 EST, Lars T Hansen wrote:
>
> > Tucke
Tucker,
I detect sarcasm in your reply, but maybe I'm just being paranoid now...
R4RS Scheme:
"For integers n1 and n2 with n2 not equal to 0,
(= n1 (+ (* n2 (quotient n1 n2)) (remainder n1 n2)))"
E262-3 (the % operator):
"In the remaining cases, where neither an infinity, nor a zero, nor
Na
On 3/6/08, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I have wanted in the past is a variable length vector whose
> length I can freeze at some point. Akin to sealing an object
> completely against mutation, after mutating it into good shape during
> its early lifetime.
Sounds like an arg
Sorry that this was unclear in the meta message. The helper function
is normative in the sense that it defines the functionality, eg in the
order of operations on a data structure. But it is not visible, not
part of the api, and a real implementation does not reserve the helper
namespace. Ditto for
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2008, at 5:08, "Lars T Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The correct interpretation is that a triple quoted string starts with
> > three quotes of the same kind and ends when the same three quotes are
> > seen in sequence provided
The correct interpretation is that a triple quoted string starts with
three quotes of the same kind and ends when the same three quotes are
seen in sequence provided that the character following the three is
not that same quote character.
(Whether you want to call that greedy or not depends on whe
On 1/24/08, Nathan de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 20:04 +0100, Chris Pine wrote:
> > It was agreed that implementations would always be free to implement
> > PTC...
>
> Really? That wasn't the impression I got. My understanding is that if
> PTC isn't a requirement, it s
On 1/22/08, Steven Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/22/08 12:14 PM, "Lars T Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > IMO, the best design is that (a) a call that is syntatically in tail
> > position is executed as a tail call when that is pos
One issue with requiring the explicit syntax is that the requirement
isn't worth anything as a restriction. The compiler will have to
figure out whether a phrase could be a tail call to find out if the
ditto phrase using explicit syntax is a legal tail call. It is but a
short step from that to op
On Jan 3, 2008 7:01 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Igor Bukanov wrote:
>
> > On 03/01/2008, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> let function f() { };
> >>
> >> I missed that if so -- did you see this in the wiki, a trac ticket,
> >> or another do
Wiki rot. The construct method is long since obsolete.
The wiki really is wildly out of date in some respects. There is
nothing solid to replace it right now, but reading it can cause severe
confusion...
--lars
On Dec 20, 2007 2:57 PM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting.
Also see http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/158. --lars
On Dec 14, 2007 7:42 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Lars T Hansen wrote:
>
> > I believe "let function" is broken in the RI (it has been in the past).
>
I believe "let function" is broken in the RI (it has been in the past).
--lars
On Dec 14, 2007 4:41 AM, Michael O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While this compiles in the RI, it still produces 2 and 2 for the output.
>
> ie. doesn't seem they are block scoped functions either.
>
> Michael
>
vative standard, not
by the ES4 spec, which is plenty complicated already.
(Also note that TG1 rejected the previous proposal on "use decimal"
(meaning "pretend all numbers are decimal") because we did not think
it could be made to work reliably. The same argument would go for any
o
On Dec 13, 2007 5:07 PM, Michael O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that the cut off for proposals is long past. But I believe
> this is an important issue that will force non-standard implementations
> bad.
>
> Proposal:
>
> Running ECMAScript on embedded devices is more and mo
Aware of it. This has been resolved in favor of making the spec say
(effectively) "FunctionDeclaration or FunctionExpression".
--lars
On 12/2/07, Peter Michaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ECMA-262 3rd
>
> == section 15.3.4.2 ==
>
> Function.prototype.toString returns a representation with synta
On Nov 24, 2007 3:37 PM, Peter Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any way to express an "intersection" type, analogous to a
> union type?
None at present. I toyed with similar things for a while, being able
to subtract types from unions and so on.
> I can see there may be fewer use cases
On Nov 17, 2007 11:11 AM, Yuh-Ruey Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it not possible to emulate this already with classes? I think you can
> use the implicitly-called construct method, e.g.
>
> class myint {
> private var i: int;
> function myint(x: int) {
>this.i = int;
> }
I'm guessing you're just experiencing the effects of
http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/285. The correct behavior is a
run-time error in standard mode; compile-time error in strict mode.
--lars
On Nov 12, 2007 11:38 PM, Nathan de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> What's the exp
On Nov 12, 2007 4:25 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> > To fix delete within this constraint, "delete " in Caja
> > either return true or throws.
>
> At this point, either ES4 slides down the slippery slope a bit and
> courts migratio
Pragmas are invariably lexically scoped.
Some pragmas are probably more useful at the top level, "use strict"
is among these. One pattern we think might develop is "use strict"
at the top level, followed by "use standard" inside some blocks where
strict mode gets in the way (if only temporarily
On Nov 11, 2007 6:01 PM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Function findDuplicate is more like "mark duplicates". The side effect
> is that it adds a __marker property to each object. As it stands, this
> function can not be called more than once. The second call might be
> passed a diffe
A bug, no doubt. I'll file it (http://bugs.ecmascript.org -- open to
all comers).
My expectation would be a compile-time error if a void function tries
to return a value since it's syntactically detectable, but I don't
remember it being discussed in the group. (Obtaining the return value
from a
On 10/29/07, Yehuda Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I couldn't quite determine this from the white-paper:
>
> If I define a class using the new class constructs, and do *not* make it
> dynamic, will I still be able to add new properties to the prototype object?
Yes.
> If so, doesn't that provid
On 10/24/07, StevenLevithan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ECMAScript 4 regular expression extension proposals indicate that the Python
> syntax will be used for named capture. Python uses (?P...) for named
> capture, (?P=name) for a backreference within the regex, and \g for a
> backreference with
(Apparently the original post was lost.)
I'm pleased to present you with an overview paper describing ES4 ast
he language currently stands. TG1 is no longer accepting proposals,
we're working on the ES4 reference implementation, and we're expecting
the standard to be finished in October 2008.
Th
I'm pleased to present you with an overview paper describing ES4 as
the language currently stands. TG1 is no longer accepting proposals,
we're working on the ES4 reference implementation, and we're expecting
the standard to be finished in October 2008.
The paper is available at
http://www.ecmascr
Thank you... --lars
On 10/22/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/10/2007, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Give the overview at http://www.ecmascript.org/es4/spec/overview.pdf
> > a read and let us know what you think.
>
>
> Page 17: "In addition, any value in the language c
On 10/22/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IWBNI there were a single test for string-ness. In ES3, you have to
> say:
>
>typeof x == 'string' || (typeof x == 'object && x instanceof String)
>
> Am I right in thinking that in ES4 you will be able to say:
>
>x is string
>
> to
On 10/22/07, zwetan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know of two industry-scale implementations under way, in addition
> > to Mozilla's Tamarin project, and Michael O'Brien (mbedthis.com), all
> > implementing ES4 in the next six to nine months
With the proviso that the program unit proposal has still to be fully
specified and debugged, I believe the following should work:
Somewhere:
unit Beget {
internal package Beget {
Object.prototype.beget = function (o) { /* what you expect */ }
Object.prototype.propertyIsEnumer
On 10/21/07, Jeff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/21/07 10:03 AM, liorean wrote:
>
> > On 21/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> var a;
> >> a= {};
> >> a instanceof Object //true
> >> a= [];
> >> a instanceof Array //true
> >> a='asdf';
> >> a instanceof String //f
Neat, though it breaks backward compatibility -- each regexp is
converted to string before the comparison, IIRC. (Compatibility may
not be a big problem in practice in this case.)
--lars
On 10/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> allow RegEx in case
>
> var str= 'a';
> switc
The ES4 syntax for type annotations is invariably a postfix ": type"
phrase: put it on variable bindings, parameters, functions (following
the parameter list).
For example,
function dot( xs: Vector., ys: Vector.): double {
let result: double = 0
for ( let i: uint=0, limit: uint=xs.lengh
You can subclass "String" but not "string", and the latter is not a
subclass of the former, which is just a container class. So I might
not open the Champagne quite yet, if I were you.
--lars
On 9/27/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just about to ask if I would be able to su
On 9/22/07, David Teller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:08 +0200, Lars T Hansen wrote:
>
> > The ES4 design docs on the wiki do not always explain the current
> > state of the language; we're not updating them any more.
> >
> > (Tenta
for me in place of int.
Excellent.
--lars
> Hopefully Adobe will adopt these classes for Flex development.
>
> Thanks,
> -Todd
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Lars T Hansen
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2
Those pages are probably somewhat out of date.
At present we have Boolean, Number, and String which are nullable
wrapper classes for boolean, double, and string, respectively. Is
there a particular reason you would need specific wrappers for int and
could not make do with Number?
If the recordse
On 9/14/07, Hallvord R. M. Steen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> while working on Opera 9.5's support for getters and setters, we've
> discussed whether it should be possible to lookup a getter/setter for a
> native (host) property. For example, something like
>
> func = Element.__lookupGetter__
On 9/14/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not looking to make trouble here, believe me, but I want to
> point out two things that could help David's case:
>
> 1. JS regexps were modeled by me (to lwall's horror ;-) on Perl
> regexen. Here's what perl (5.8.8) does:
>
> $ perl
> "aaa
On 9/13/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13/09/2007, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The current behavior
> > is well-defined; it's not a hardship for anyone; the incompatibilities
> > among the engines are probably not a big deal (th
On 9/13/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Got some questions about named groups:
>
> "Group names must be valid lexical identifiers, and each group name
> must be defined only once within a regular expression."
>
> 1. Is this meant to indicate that regex add their own lexical scop
gree with me (and I was careful to not state my opinion there)...
>
>
> > On 9/2/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > var
> > > re=/(a\1)+|b/,
> > > a=[],
> > > key,
> > > aab=re.exec('aab')
>
that, but it has been there in the more hazardous
> writable form. I just wanted it be actually included in the spec. Or is
> there some new functionality in ES4 that will somehow interact with
> __proto__ to introduce a security threat?
> Kris
> - Original Message -
> From:
On 9/11/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/09/2007, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the one hand, __proto__ is another potential security hole, and it
> > prevents implementations from sharing prototype objects among multiple
> > docum
On the one hand, __proto__ is another potential security hole, and it
prevents implementations from sharing prototype objects among multiple
documents -- the link may be read-only but the object isn't. Function
B called from function A with object O may hack O.__proto__ and A can
do nothing about
On 9/5/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/26/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/26/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/spec/spec.html
> > >
> > > Bottom of th
On 6/5/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> After discussion in a thread on ECMAScript binding of the DOM I came
> to wonder a bit of what type of type contraints ES4 actually will be
> able to have:
>
> 2. Also, conversions between the types. Is is possible to have a type
> constrai
On 6/18/07, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Peter Michaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think that fixing this edge case to make a very robust forEach
> > would be a bad idea. I think having a very robust forEach (similar to
> > the DOM2 iteration over handlers) wo
On 8/21/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The es3 code is:
>
> function A () ...;
> A.zot = function zot () { ... this ... }
>
> function B () ...;
> B.prototype = new A();
> B.zot = A.zot;
>
> hence `this` is A in A.zot and B in B.zot.
Right...
> I was thinking the equivalent es4 w
I believe it is restricted to ArrayPattern. --lars
On 8/23/07, Eric Suen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Pattern ::= ArrayPattern
> Pattern -> SimplePattern -> LeftHandSideExpression -> ArrayLiteral
>
> Is it possible ArrayLiteral appear in Pattern, or it must be an
> ArrayPattern? Like Expr
On 8/26/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back to "caller"...
> "caller" is on the prototype in Mozilla. Not sure where it is in IE,
> prototype or instance.
>
> On the instance in WebKit.
>
> Absent in Opera.
Absent in ES3. Absent in ES4.
function f() {
// I wonder how my caller
On 8/26/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The
> perfectly valid use case of trying to have a private constructor, will
> not, unfortunately be accommodated by ES4;
Now filed as bug 166 in the Trac.
--lars
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-d
On 9/2/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering about the new JSON methods:
>
> Object.prototype.toJSONString
> String.prototype.parseJSON
>
> to me, parseJSON seems like it should not be a String prototype method.
>
> I'm thinking about other "parse" type of methods, like Dat
On 9/2/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> var
> re=/(a\1)+|b/,
> a=[],
> key,
> aab=re.exec('aab')
> aaab=re.exec('aaab');
> for(key in aab)
> a.push('aab["'+key+'"]: '+aab[key]);
> for(key in aaab)
> a.push('aaab["'+key+
On 9/1/07, David Golightly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious as to the fate of the famous JavaScript 1.6 Array extras
> (indexOf, lastIndexOf, forEach, map, filter, every, some) in ECMAScript 4.
> As a JavaScript developer, I've come to greatly appreciate the
> functional-style flexibility t
On 8/26/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/26/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/spec/spec.html
> >
> > Bottom of the page.
> >
> > I found that it was convenient for printing.
> >
&g
ved from the ActionScript 3
spec, somewhat updated (maybe) but not current in any sense that I'm
aware of.
Everyone, I'm removing the link to this spec, the confusion of having
it there does us no good.
--lars
>
> Garrett
>
>
> On 8/25/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTEC
On 8/21/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surveying my code base I found 27 'static function's, 3 of which use
> 'this' to refer to the class, and one of which should not be static
> (use 'this' to refer to the instance and the programmer erroneously
> declared the function static).
Loading a file interactively:
intrinsic::load(filename)
--lars
On 8/19/07, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am on a Mac. I downloaded from here, did not compile mysef.
> http://www.ecmascript.org/license.php?file=es4-pre-release.M0.osx-ppc.tar.gz
>
> I would like to run the tests a
On 8/16/07, Stefan Gössner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> here are my first questions after following the list quite a while.
>
> 1. I really like the array slice syntax [start:end:step] described in
> http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/proposals/slice_syntax.html
>
> The description seems to
On 8/3/07, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Is Microsoft working with ECMA TG1 ?
> >>>
> > Should someone invite them?
>
> I'm not sure they would come :)
Microsoft has participated in the TG1 work for a long time already.
--lars
___
Es
On 7/30/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. :)
Joining is more sinister t
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 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
&g
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 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 6/25/07, 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
7" and "2007-07" would make it fully compatible.)
--lars
On 7/28/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Lars T Hansen wrote:
>
>
>
> Date.parse("2007-07-28")
> SpiderMonkey:
>
> js> Date.parse("2007
On 7/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 2007, at 10:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > In the public Date/time proposal, the Date.parse static method
> > > returns a Date. This is a bit odd, because the current
Thanks for the code.
If it is true that ISO week numbers are different from US week numbers
I'm not sure we want to touch this, it might be better for sites to
implement their own as their needs dictate (based on audience etc).
The wikipedia hints that there are even more systems in use (search
fo
On 7/25/07, Brad Fults <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can take maximum blame for advocating Dict over Dictionary, based
> > on brevity and the Python type, transliterated appropriately
> > (capitalized, I mean ;-).
> >
> > But Hash is just as
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) The
On 7/25/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see this as two issues.
> >
> > 1) The need for Collections/Data Structures.
> > 2) The desire for shorthand access to these.
>
> Indeed. We
{
> return !this.hasOwnProperty( prop ); // This function is not bound at
> this point.
> }
> };
>
> fooTwo.get( "hasOwnProperty" ); // function.
> fooTwo.hasOwnProperty( "hasOwnProperty" ); // false.
> fooTwo[ "hasOwnProperty" ]; // Do w
On 7/16/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/16/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I was wondering about two things involving timezones.
> > &
On 7/17/07, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
>
> > This proposal also states the T in date/time is mandatory, and the
> > rest is optionally:
> > timestamp ::= date? "T" time? tz?
> >
> > a bit odd. I'm glad there's a new version.
>
> In general the T is mandato
On 7/16/07, Lars T Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I was wondering about two things involving timezones.
> >
> > The proposal "Date and time improvements" is defining the
>
On 7/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was wondering about two things involving timezones.
>
> The proposal "Date and time improvements" is defining the
> Date.toISO():String method.
>
> It's unclear to me in what timezone the date should
> be serialized in: local timezo
On 7/16/07, Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Jason Orendorff wrote:
> >
> > On 7/13/07, Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> For collections, it would be very useful to have a natively-supported
> >> equals() method.
> >
> > ECMAScript 4 has operator overloading. You can just override t
On 7/15/07, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/15/07, Alexandre Bergel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The notion of namespace of ECMA 4 is very interesting. I spent some
> > time in reading the new javascript description [1]. I try to
> > understand whether a "stack of namespace" is
On 6/26/07, Graydon Hoare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hall wrote:
> > This syntax doesn't seem to add anything either. It's equivalent to
> > enforcing that you initialize the properties in the constructor (as
> > opposed to doing it in other functions that could be invoked by the
> > constr
85 matches
Mail list logo
