On Apr 10, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
> Here is the third draft, which I have tentatively labeled as stable.
>
> Please note the OPEN ISSUES, the input of everyone on these would be
> appreciated.
No one has addressed this OPEN ISSUE:
* The meta::prototype facility does not allow 'nu
On Apr 17, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> 2008/4/17 Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> These are wanted by Ajax library hackers, jresig and shaver
>> testify. Rather
>> than cut a long-standing proposal because a recent evolution of
>> its *syntax*
>> (not its substance) led to so
On 4/10/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the third draft, which I have tentatively labeled as stable.
>
> Please note the OPEN ISSUES, the input of everyone on these would be
> appreciated.
> * There is no way to seal the object created by an object
>initializer, as a pr
th Firefox.
--lars
From: Jeff Dyer
Sent: 18. april 2008 06:34
To: Brendan Eich
Cc: Lars Hansen; es4-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: ES4 stable draft: object initializers
On 4/17/08 2:13 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> These are wanted by Ajax library hackers, jresig and shaver testify. Rather
> than cut a long-standing proposal because a recent evolution of its *syntax*
> (not its substance) led to something problematic, why not return to the
> original syntax:
>
>
2008/4/17 Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These are wanted by Ajax library hackers, jresig and shaver testify. Rather
> than cut a long-standing proposal because a recent evolution of its *syntax*
> (not its substance) led to something problematic, why not return to the
> original syntax:
Yes,
On Apr 17, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Jeff Dyer wrote:
The catchall syntax seems heavy handed for the use cases it serves.
It introduces new syntax, not just special meaning for ‘meta’
qualified names, and it is otherwise possible to create object
values with catchalls by using classes.
I propose
Presumably that would be __proto__ so that we would not be gratuitously
incompatible with Firefox.
--lars
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Dyer
> Sent: 17. april 2008 16:12
> To: Waldemar Horwat; Lars Hansen
> Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: ES4 st
On 4/15/08 4:38 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> The grammar doesn't work:
>
> {meta::prototype:17}
> can be parsed as either a FieldName or as the meta::prototype production. To
> make parsing unambiguous you can't allow "meta" to be included in
> AnyIdentifier (or implement some other similar f
The catchall syntax seems heavy handed for the use cases it serves. It
introduces new syntax, not just special meaning for meta¹ qualified names,
and it is otherwise possible to create object values with catchalls by using
classes.
I propose that we remove the productions that begin with ³meta::
On 16/04/2008, Waldemar Horwat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is also another ambiguity in the grammar:
>
> var {x:y, p:q} = expr;
>
> is both an assignment expression statement and a destructuring variable
> binding statement.
An assignment to an object literal seems like total bogus thoug
There is also another ambiguity in the grammar:
var {x:y, p:q} = expr;
is both an assignment expression statement and a destructuring variable binding
statement.
Waldemar
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.or
My comments:
The grammar doesn't work:
{meta::prototype:17}
can be parsed as either a FieldName or as the meta::prototype production. To
make parsing unambiguous you can't allow "meta" to be included in AnyIdentifier
(or implement some other similar fix).
Class type discussion:
Do the prop
Here is the third draft, which I have tentatively labeled as stable.
Please note the OPEN ISSUES, the input of everyone on these would be
appreciated.
--lars
Title: Object initializers
Object initializer syntax
NAME: "Object initializer syntax"
FILE:
14 matches
Mail list logo
