Are the XML elements in that grammar just an oversight, or is this a
placeholder for future implementations of ECMA-357? E4X is not supposed
to be part of ES4.
Michael
--
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On B
: Michael Daumling; 'es4-discuss Discuss'
Subject: RE: ES4 draft: Error classes
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Daumling
> Sent: 18. mars 2008 06:21
> To: Lars Hansen; es4-discuss Discuss
> Subject: RE: ES4 draft: Error classes
>
> Very generic, and easi
Very generic, and easily expandable - I like it! This proposal provides
enough optional information for error dialogs.
Clarification question: Wouldn't the context and backTrace properties be
instance properties, not prototype properties? The Error prototype
object would contain these two properti
I think that there is general agreement that
1) Object.prototype should not be polluted
2) Namespaces to add functionality are difficult to handle
3) Changing a getter to a setter by adding a new parameter is not a good
idea.
We will have this discussion over and over again as we add properties
a
--
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Lars T Hansen
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:25 AM
To: Michael Daumling
Cc: Lars Hansen; Mike Shaver; es4-discuss Discuss
Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Error classes
On 3/9/08, Michael Daumling <[EMAIL PROTEC
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 these properties must be present, but that the actual
value of these
This may sound like a stupid question, but...
Adding file and line info to an Error instance seems to be a good thing.
Should the standard include two read-only properties "fileName" and
"line" that an implementation may choose to fill in during construction,
and that return, say, the empty string
>According to what edition of ECMA-357, with what unfixed and fixed
errata?
>Tested interoperably with other implementations (say,
>SpiderMonkey's) how?
I can only speak for ExtendScript. E4X was implemented according to
ECMA-357 2nd edition, and it is tested using the SpiderMonkey test
suite. Un
Well, I do find the feature useful...
I have seen a lot of scripts that contain multiline strings. Yes, you
can used escaped newlines, but triple-quoting is definitely much more
useful. For what it's worth, triple-quoting is syntactic sugar, but the
sugar
1) is easy to describe and implement,
2)
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the decision to not support E4X in
ES4. Would this decision not Break The Web, as E4X has been an integral
part of SpiderMonkey for a long time?
Anyway, what advantage does the hiding of the prefix and name properties
have? Shouldn't we at least be aware of po
Waldemar Horwat wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what the intent is, but as this is written:
>>>
>>> """abcdef"""
>>>
>>> will evaluate to the same string as 'abcdef'.
>>
>> It will not. The text of the spec is "The literal is terminated by
>> the earliest sequence of three unescaped instances
11 matches
Mail list logo
