RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I think you're trying to say something else too but I can't figure > > out what it is, something about the ns in ns::id being a literal in > > a stronger sense than what I just outlined? > > Let me try to be clea

Re: Strict mode recap

On Apr 11, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: > There might be a slight misunderstanding here. In my example, the > name C.ns is constant, not a general expression; C needs to be a > class, and ns needs to be a static namespace definition inside that > class (suitably available). Oh, ok.

RE: Strict mode recap

ss@mozilla.org es4-discuss; liorean Subject: Re: Strict mode recap On Apr 11, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Lars Hansen wrote: (It _is_ an indication that the syntax used in the object initializers is not fully general, though, since it only

Re: Strict mode recap

On Apr 11, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Lars Hansen wrote: (It _is_ an indication that the syntax used in the object initializers is not fully general, though, since it only allows simple identifiers in the namespace position. Sigh.) I've argued that JS's literal property identifiers in object initia

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 11. april 2008 11:10 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org; liorean > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Jon

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yep, I agree with this, too. I certainly wouldn't want to mandate > > var public::x > > in classes and wouldn't really want to write it myself. But there's > some value in having a single, canonical syntactic form

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One motivation is that programmers are likely to prefer the Java-like > syntax where the namespace (in its role as access control) shows > up early: > > public var count = > private var key = > > I really think t

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 11. april 2008 09:50 > > ... > The question is: why not apply it to classes, too? > > By the way, I was wrong about the grammar allowing > > var public::count = ... > > in

Re: Strict mode recap

; > > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org; liorean > > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Lars Hansen > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Right, I get that, and Brendan's poin

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 11. april 2008 09:26 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org; liorean > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Right, I get that, and Brendan's point was a good one. I was > > just thrown by the fact that I hadn't seen an example of > > > > class A { > > var public::count = 10; > > } > > > > rather than > > > > class

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 11. april 2008 05:20 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: liorean; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > > Apart from that there&#

Re: Strict mode recap

On 4/11/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4/10/08, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > var o = { null var count = 100, ... }; > > > > Sorry: two syntactic mistakes, here, one of which is interesting. > > The boring one is my use of '=' rather than ':'. >

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 10. april 2008 21:31 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: liorean; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On 4/10/08, Jon Zeppier

Re: Strict mode recap

On Apr 10, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > On 4/10/08, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> var o = { null var count = 100, ... }; > > Sorry: two syntactic mistakes, here, one of which is interesting. > The boring one is my use of '=' rather than ':'. > > But after reading th

Re: Strict mode recap

On 4/10/08, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > var o = { null var count = 100, ... }; Sorry: two syntactic mistakes, here, one of which is interesting. The boring one is my use of '=' rather than ':'. But after reading the object initializer draft, I see that, if the intent of the a

Re: Strict mode recap

On 4/4/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Classes can have namespaced properties and globals can too. These > objects are in scope in a method (say), so in order to reference a > property in them from the method, at a minimum the form ns::id must be > available to the program (for

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (and the latter does not handle shadowing, for better or worse). > > > > Heh. Someone should revive Mark Miller. > > [startles] What? I'm a

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (and the latter does not handle shadowing, for better or worse). > > Heh. Someone should revive Mark Miller. [startles] What? I'm awake. Can someone summarize the issue in a self-contained manner? -- Text by me abo

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That could be true. But it could also be the case that people > find that it is easier to say > > var x = ... > var y = ... > var n = "x" // but could be y > > ... > // n may change here by assigning another st

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 4. april 2008 11:38 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: liorean; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > > I disagree, based on my experi

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hope the forthcoming spec on names will clarify > this, so I suggest we hold off arguing about this particular point for > the moment. Happily. > > You can argue, and I think you are arguing, that there is no utility

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: Jon Zeppieri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 4. april 2008 11:02 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: liorean; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Lars Hansen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&

Re: Strict mode recap

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't get it. > > Your comment about inhibiting static analysis isn't right; if ns::x is a > name then either ns is known to be constant at compile time or not, and > if it is, then nothing prevents early binding. ES

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean > Sent: 4. april 2008 10:47 > To: es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On 04/04/2008, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >

Re: Strict mode recap

> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > > > Let me turn it around. > > From my perspective, it isn't an E4X vs. ES4 distinction; > > it's a "looking up a property of a first-class object" vs. > > "using a local variable" (or, if you prefer, "lookin

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 3. april 2008 21:35 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > > > > Let me turn it around. > >

Re: Strict mode recap

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... treats the environment as if it were a datum. I know that in the > ES3 spec all bindings are referred to as properties of objects, but > activation objects are only notional entities. The current ES4 > proposal seem

Re: Strict mode recap

On 4/4/08, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > eval has a real use: runtime code generation. (This does not require > dynamically scoped eval, but that's beside the point here.) Uh, I meant "lexically scoped eval," of course... ___ Es4-discuss

Re: Strict mode recap

On 4/3/08, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04/04/2008, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > function foo(name) { > > ... > > return null::[name]; > > } > > > > ... treats the environment as if it were a datum. I know that in the > > ES3 spec all bindings are refe

Re: Strict mode recap

On 04/04/2008, Jon Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is like the E4X example in one crucial respect: in both cases, > you're accessing a property of a first-class object. I'm not arguing > against this use of computed names. I don't see any significant > difference between the above

Re: Strict mode recap

On 4/3/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > package X { > namespace myns; > > class C { > myns var v = 37; > } > > var x = myns; > var y = "v"; > > print((new C).x::[y]); > } > > This does print '37' if compiled with ASC and run through > the Tamarin

RE: Strict mode recap

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 3. april 2008 10:10 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Lars

Re: Strict mode recap

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is this already in AS3? If so, is it often used? > > The syntax comes from E4X, which is incorporated into AS3 and > Spidermonkey. Try this in Firefox: > > > var x = RE: Strict mode recap

2008-04-02 Thread Lars Hansen

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 2. april 2008 20:51 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On 4/2/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-04-02 Thread Jon Zeppieri

On 4/2/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I meant something like: > > > > var foo::[bar] = baz; > > > > My objection to expr::[expr] in earlier messages was based on > > the assumption that these computed names could be used on the > > left-hand side of an assignment express

RE: Strict mode recap

2008-04-02 Thread Lars Hansen

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 2. april 2008 19:06 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On 4/2/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-04-02 Thread Jon Zeppieri

On 4/2/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Lars, does this mean that expr::[expr] can't introduce > > lexical bindings? Or: in strict mode, it can't, but in > > standard it can? > > > It can't introduce bindings; it's just a name. I meant something like: var foo::[bar] = baz;

RE: Strict mode recap

2008-04-02 Thread Lars Hansen

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 2. april 2008 17:51 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: Waldemar Horwat; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > On 3/31/08, Lars Hanse

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-04-02 Thread Jon Zeppieri

On 3/31/08, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Having thought more about this, we may get away with less > draconian measures for lexically scoped eval -- it's enough > to simply decree that eval may not add bindings to the > caller's binding object in strict mode (a simple run-time chec

RE: Strict mode recap

2008-04-02 Thread Lars Hansen

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen > Sent: 31. mars 2008 20:09 > To: Waldemar Horwat; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: RE: Strict mode recap > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMA

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-04-01 Thread Brendan Eich

On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: > Strangely, built-in functions were exempt from the mechanism (ch 15 > intro); I don't know if that's a pragmatic issue (implementation > reasons) > or a security issue. I don't recall, but it doesn't matter for natives, AFAICT. > The mechanism is

RE: Strict mode recap

2008-04-01 Thread Lars Hansen

> -Original Message- > From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31. mars 2008 21:36 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: Waldemar Horwat; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap > > > > > - Disable FunctionObject.arguments (not actually in

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-04-01 Thread Waldemar Horwat

Mark Miller wrote: >> > - Disable FunctionObject.arguments (not actually in ES3 but >> > woefully used in practice) >> >> This is an interesting one, since disallowing it would mean that >> the ES3.1 and ES4 specs would have to re-allow it so that they could >> explicitly disallow it :) > > Y

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-03-31 Thread Erik Arvidsson

> > > - Disable FunctionObject.arguments (not actually in ES3 but > > > woefully used in practice) > > > > This is an interesting one, since disallowing it would mean that > > the ES3.1 and ES4 specs would have to re-allow it so that they could > > explicitly disallow it :) > > Yes. It's also

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-03-31 Thread Mark Miller

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waldemar Horwat > > - delete o.x when x is not in o but in the proto will throw > > Actually delete o.x when x is not an own property on o, > regardless of whether x in o. I didn'

Re: Strict mode recap

2008-03-31 Thread Mark Miller

For context, a brief summary of the consensus agreement we reached at the ES committee meeting: The EcmaScript Committee will produce two official standards documents: * An ES3.1 standard, to supercede the ES3 standard * An ES4 standard Currently, the ES3 spec as written differs from the de-facto

RE: Strict mode recap

2008-03-31 Thread Lars Hansen

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Waldemar Horwat > Sent: 31. mars 2008 18:03 > To: es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Strict mode recap > > Here are the items mentioned for inclusion in strict mode: >

Strict mode recap

2008-03-31 Thread Waldemar Horwat

Here are the items mentioned for inclusion in strict mode: - Don't turn a null 'this' value into the global object (if non-strict mode in ES4 doesn't already do this) - Throw on writes to read-only properties - Throw on deletes of dontdelete properties - delete o.x when x is not in o but in the