On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
>> This is all thin syntactic sugar, so I don't agree it rocks
>> the boat too much to follow the full prototype in Python.
>> I'll update the proposal, since it claims to follow the PEP,
>> but fails since the PEP cites the RM.
>
> The PEP is scarcel
> -Original Message-
> From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 2. april 2008 17:15
> To: Lars Hansen
> Cc: Jason Orendorff; Jeff Dyer; es4-discuss
> Subject: Re: grammar update
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
>
> > Looks l
On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
> Looks like those restrictions (condition only at the end, only 'for',
> 'for each',
> and 'if' clauses) originate in Brendan's original (too-sketchy)
> proposal, see
> the "Comprehensions" section of this page:
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.ph
osal.
--lars
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Orendorff
> Sent: 2. april 2008 13:46
> To: Jeff Dyer
> Cc: es4-discuss
> Subject: Re: grammar update
>
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Dyer &
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've updated the ES4 grammar files linked from
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:normative_grammar
Thanks for doing this. I noticed that the grammar doesn't allow this:
[addr
for each (user in users
= function() type FunctionType
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Suen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.javascript.ecmascript4.general
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:35 PM
> Subject: Re: grammar
: "Eric Suen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.javascript.ecmascript4.general
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: grammar update
> Page 11
> FunctionDeclaration ::= function FunctionName FunctionSignature
> shoul
Page 11
FunctionDeclaration ::= function FunctionName FunctionSignature
should be
FunctionDeclarationW ::= function FunctionName FunctionSignature SemicolonW
following statement:
type function() like AAA
Should it be:
RelationalExpression like TypeExpression (like is operator)
[type functio
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
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
er IE reserved words? So far as I can see, the
list of reserved and contextually reserved identifiers contain only ES4
keywords.
--lars
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Dyer
> Sent: 30. mars 2008 21:52
> To: Lars Hansen; es4-discuss
> Subject: Re: grammar update
>
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
> Almost: uniformity between array literals and function calls. But
> another issue was typeability-- it won't be possible for a statically
> typed mode to type-check splicing in the middle of an array.
Maybe I spoke too soon on that point-- depending on the array types, it
might not be problem
> - Allowing splat expressions in array literals is a nice addition, but
> restricting them to the end of element lists seems unnecessary. Is
> the purpose uniformity between array literals and array patterns?
Almost: uniformity between array literals and function calls. But
another issue was ty
On 3/30/08, Jeff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've updated the ES4 grammar files linked from
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:normative_grammar
Thanks, Jeff.
- Allowing splat expressions in array literals is a nice addition, but
restricting them to the end of e
IIRC, 'enum' is one of the four extra IE reserved words that we've reserved
for posterity. 'wrap' and 'has' should be removed from their respective
lists.
Thanks,
Jd
On 3/30/08 8:31 PM, Lars Hansen wrote:
> Observed on page 1:
>
> 'enum' and 'wrap' do not belong in the list of reserved words.
Observed on page 1:
'enum' and 'wrap' do not belong in the list of reserved words.
If 'has' is contextually reserved then so is 'invoke'.
--lars
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Dyer
> Sent: 30. mars 2008 18:30
> To: es4-discu
18 matches
Mail list logo
