Good catch and thanks for the correction! The take-home from the example is
that: due to the global lexical scope, a TDZ error could arise later due to
newly introduced bindings.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/17/15 8:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>
>> The first call to
Hi,
One of the major use cases for MutationObserver is all kinds of libraries that
either shim APIs or provide intrinsic modifications to DOM experience.
Examples of such libraries may be:
* A library that provides Date/Time pickers only caring about
* A library that extends behavior of a part
Targeting Firefox 43, I intend to turn Canvas CaptureStream on by default
for all platforms. It has been developed behind the
`canvas.capturestream.enabled` preference, and landed behind that pref in
Firefox 41.
Other UAs intending to ship it are at least Chromium/Blink, who have
started work in t
On 9/17/15 8:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
The first call to f() does not throw.
It actually does, because the bareword lookup for "x" fails. You get
"ReferenceError: x is not defined".
If you replaced "x" with "window.x" or "self.x" or "this.x" or something
I think you'd get the behavior you
(Isn't that bananas, by the way?)
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Neil wrote:
>
>> Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>>
>> 4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope
>>> (lol!):
>>>
>>>
>>> function f() { dump(x); }
>>> f(); // pri
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Neil wrote:
> Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>
> 4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope (lol!):
>>
>>
>> function f() { dump(x); }
>> f(); // prints undefined
>>
>>
>>
>> let x = 42;
>> f(); // prints 42
>>
>>
>> Would you mind clarifying wh
Shu-yu Guo wrote:
4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope (lol!):
function f() { dump(x); }
f(); // prints undefined
let x = 42;
f(); // prints 42
Would you mind clarifying what this is supposed to demonstrate? It looks
to me that this is demonstrating TDZ
If you want your subscript to work reliably, you should run it in a sandbox
with an Expanded Principal [1] whose sandboxPrototype points to the content
window object. Otherwise, your code will be subject to breakage by pages
that muck with global state.
If you don't care about that, you might as w
Does anyone know, if an extension injects a script into a content page using
Services.scriptloader.loadSubScript, is there any danger of leaking something
with chrome privileges to the page?
Here's a short example of how I'm hoping to use loadSubScript:
https://github.com/arthuredelstein/torbut
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 3:55:27 AM UTC+10, Andrew McCreight wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Andrew McCreight
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Gerald Squelart
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Good stuff!
> >>
> >> I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as well.
Note that for JS objects (and JS strings very soon), you can track
allocation stacks with the Debugger API:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Debugger-API/Debugger.Memory
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Andrew McCreight
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Andrew McCreight
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Rob Stradling
wrote:
> The existence of this bug...
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191414
> "gather telemetry on usage of "
>
> ...would seem to suggest that Mozilla "haven't decided anything yet".
>
IMHO that's not a good approach. A coomon us
Hello all,
We are in the process of implementing the global lexical scope per ES6.
This changes the semantics of global level 'let' and 'const' bindings from
our non-standard semantics to standard semantics.
Currently, global 'let' and 'const' bindings introduce properties onto the
global objec
The existence of this bug...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1191414
"gather telemetry on usage of "
...would seem to suggest that Mozilla "haven't decided anything yet".
On 17/09/15 19:51, helpcrypto helpcrypto wrote:
> Hi all
>
>
> As previously raised on this list, there's a op
Hi all
As previously raised on this list, there's a open wardiscussion about
removing [1]
Some people, like Sir Tim Berners-Lee doesn't seem to agree with that,
hence another thread is taking place at [2]
For Google, it seems the decision has been made, nothing is going to
change, and could d
Yes that's a good point and a perfectly sensible. Thanks for the handy
wrapper!
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:37 PM, J. Ryan Stinnett wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Benoit Girard
> wrote:
> > I just
> > hope that we continue to maintain mozregression as a standalone tool and
> > that thi
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Andrew McCreight
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Gerald Squelart
> wrote:
>
>> Good stuff!
>>
>> I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as well.
>>
>> I recently experimented with that for a troubled RefCounted class [1],
>> and it w
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Gerald Squelart wrote:
> Good stuff!
>
> I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as well.
>
> I recently experimented with that for a troubled RefCounted class [1], and
> it was very useful to find which AddRef didn't have its corresponding
> Releas
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> git bz edit and git bz push don't work, but the rest should, so please file
>> issues at https://github.com/mozilla/git-bz-moz or email me if you notice
>> them. (Oh, I think setting reviewer flags for Firefox product bugs doesn't
>> work, i
On 2015-09-15 5:37 PM, Andrew McCreight wrote:
Apparently Bugzilla 2fa breaks the weird cookie authentication method that
git-bz-moz and bzexport use. I think I've read that this is a bugzilla bug,
but in the meanwhile I've been working on making git-bz-moz use the
Bugzilla backend of bexport, wh
Good stuff!
I hope you'll consider tracking AddRef's and Release's as well.
I recently experimented with that for a troubled RefCounted class [1], and it
was very useful to find which AddRef didn't have its corresponding Release.
Cheers,
Gerald
[1] https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/8dffaf0d2acf
_
Summary: Drop TSF support only from WinXP and WinServer 2003.
Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1205600
Platforms: Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2
Estimated or target release: Gecko 44
Background:
I've already given up to support TSF on WinXP and Win
22 matches
Mail list logo
