On Mar 6, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/357
And Jon Zeppieri kindly implemented this spread (Tucker, have I been
misnaming it as "splat"?) operator in the RI. I just commented again
in the ticket.
/be__
Behalf Of P T Withington
> Sent: 6. mars 2008 10:48
> To: Brendan Eich
> Cc: es4-discuss Discuss; Dean Edwards; Jeff Dyer; Lars T Hansen
> Subject: foo(...args) [Was: super.apply(this, arguments)]
>
> Did the use of ... in the parameter list (in the tail position only, I
> assume
Did the use of ... in the parameter list (in the tail position only, I
assume) of a function call to 'spread' an array of arguments get
accepted into the language? Is the proper way to trampoline all my
constructor args to my superclass going to be:
class Foo extends Bar {
function Foo(.
Nathan de Vries wrote:
> Sounds similar to the splat operator of Ruby:
>
> def foo(first, second, *rest)
>puts first, second, rest.inspect
> end
>
> foo(1,2)
> => 1 2 []
>
> foo(1,2,3,4,5)
> => 1 2 [3, 4, 5]
>
> rest = [3,4,5]
> foo(1,2, *rest)
>
On 21/12/2007, at 11:56 PM, P T Withington wrote:
> Cute! So ... is the 'spread' operator that spreads an array of
> arguments into a parameter list.
Sounds similar to the splat operator of Ruby:
def foo(first, second, *rest)
puts first, second, rest.inspect
end
foo(1,2)
On 2007-12-21, at 00:39 EST, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Jeff Dyer wrote:
>
>> The original Netscape ES4 proposal had syntax for passing arguments
>> as an
>> array. (Waldemar are you listening?) IIRC it used triple dots like
>> this:
>>
>> foo(...args)
>>
>> to mean u
That is a slightly different feature. ...rest is included for
declaring variable length argument lists. But not for passing a
variable number of values when you actually make the call.
// this is implemented in AS3
function myFunction(...rest){
}
// this is not
args = [1,2,3];
myFunction(...args)
On 21/12/2007, at 11:01 AM, Jeff Dyer wrote:
> We dropped this from AS3 for lack of evidence for its need.
Really? The "rest" arguments (tail arguments specified as an array)
is available in AS3 as far as I'm aware:
function foo(first:*, second:*, ...rest) {
trace(arguments.length
On Dec 20, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Jeff Dyer wrote:
The original Netscape ES4 proposal had syntax for passing arguments
as an
array. (Waldemar are you listening?) IIRC it used triple dots like
this:
foo(...args)
to mean use the elements of 'args' as positional arguments of foo. We
dropped thi
> super initializer. This syntax is just letting you override how your
> arguments are passed on to your super initializer. What is the
> default if I don't specify a call to my super initializer? Does it
> get all my arguments, or none of them?
>
> class A extends B {
&
an usability check.
> What is the
> default if I don't specify a call to my super initializer? Does it
> get all my arguments, or none of them?
None of them.
>
> class A extends B {
> function A(x,y,z) : super.apply (this, arguments) { ... }
>}
>
>
s are passed on to your super initializer. What is the
default if I don't specify a call to my super initializer? Does it
get all my arguments, or none of them?
class A extends B {
function A(x,y,z) : super.apply (this, arguments) { ... }
}
?
Personally, I really don't li
Peter Hall wrote:
> I haven't tried this in the RI, but what about:
>
> var sup = super;
> sup.apply(this, arguments);
No, the problem arises from two separate facts:
- constructor invocation is not a function call
- super-constructor chaining is not a function call either
Both of thes
I haven't tried this in the RI, but what about:
var sup = super;
sup.apply(this, arguments);
?
Peter
On Dec 20, 2007 6:05 PM, Jeff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so flippant.
>
> As you may know, super expressions limit the binding of the name after the
> dot
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so flippant.
As you may know, super expressions limit the binding of the name after the
dot to the base class bindings. So the fragment above would call the super
instance method 'apply', not the super constructor. We could give 'apply'
some special meaning when the f
> On 12/20/07 7:20 AM, P T Withington wrote:
>
>> Ok. I didn't look in the wiki to start with because of that, hence I
>> ask on the list: can I apply my super's constructor as in the subject
>> line?
>>
Jeff Dyer wrote:
> Sorry, but you can't.
>
That's a shame.
-dean
___
Sorry, but you can't.
Jd
On 12/20/07 7:20 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> Ok. I didn't look in the wiki to start with because of that, hence I
> ask on the list: can I apply my super's constructor as in the subject
> line?
>
> On 2007-12-20, at 10:10 EST, Lars T Hansen wrote:
>
>> Wiki rot. Th
Ok. I didn't look in the wiki to start with because of that, hence I
ask on the list: can I apply my super's constructor as in the subject
line?
On 2007-12-20, at 10:10 EST, Lars T Hansen wrote:
> Wiki rot. The construct method is long since obsolete.
>
> The wiki really is wildly out of d
tt Smith wrote:
>
> > There's a proposal that, I think, addresses that using construct:
> >
> > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:static_generics
> >
> > Though in the context of a subclass' constructor, I don't know what
> > the syntax wo
sals:static_generics
>
> Though in the context of a subclass' constructor, I don't know what
> the syntax would be.
>
> Garrett
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 9:46 AM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is this permitted syntax in a constructor:
>>
Is this permitted syntax in a constructor:
super.apply(this, arguments);
for the case where I want to pass all my arguments to my superclass
constructor? If not, how does one do that, especially if the
constructor I am calling from takes a ...rest arg
21 matches
Mail list logo
