Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Implement missing ECMAScript features #66

Closed
joeduffy opened this issue Jan 28, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Implement missing ECMAScript features #66

joeduffy opened this issue Jan 28, 2017 · 4 comments
Labels
area/tooling
Milestone
0.5

Comments

@joeduffy
Copy link
Member

There are some features left out of the initial MuJS implementation (like properties). This work item tracks creating a complete list and actually knocking them off.
@joeduffy
Copy link
Member Author

joeduffy commented Feb 2, 2017

@joeduffy joeduffy added this to the S10 milestone Feb 2, 2017
@joeduffy joeduffy mentioned this issue Feb 10, 2017
Closed
@joeduffy joeduffy mentioned this issue Apr 3, 2017
Closed
@joeduffy joeduffy changed the title Implement missing MuJS features Implement missing ECMAScript features May 16, 2017
joeduffy added a commit that referenced this issue May 16, 2017
@joeduffy
Implement property accessors
82e3624 
This change implements property accessors (getters and setters).

The approach is fairly basic, but is heavily inspired by the ECMAScript5
approach of attaching a getter/setter to any property slot (even if we don't
yet fully exploit this capability).  The evaluator then needs to track and
utilize the appropriate accessor functions when loading locations.

This change includes CocoJS support and makes a dent in #66.
@joeduffy joeduffy modified the milestones: S3, S2 May 25, 2017
@joeduffy joeduffy modified the milestones: 0.4, 0.3 Jun 5, 2017
@joeduffy joeduffy modified the milestones: 0.5, 0.4 Jun 27, 2017
@chrsmith
Copy link
Contributor

Not sure if this is the right place to capture library differences too. But using JSON.stringify and console.error would be super-useful.

@lukehoban
Copy link
Member

But using JSON.stringify and console.error would be super-useful.

Indeed! Note that there are intrinsically available for now that can generally be used in place of these - lumirt.jsonStringify and lumirt.printf. Definitely need to get to the real APIs, but if this is blocking, those intrinsically should unblock you.

@joeduffy
Copy link
Member Author

The new runtime design in #271, being implemented in #311, obsoletes this work item. In the new model, we are not responsible for implementing any JavaScript runtime or library features: Node/V8 give us everything we need.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/tooling
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.5
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@lukehoban @joeduffy @chrsmith