[Laszlo-dev] For Review: Change 20071115-lou-5 Summary: Document reserved words in 4.x
Lou Iorio
liorio at laszlosystems.com
Tue Nov 20 08:17:18 PST 2007
So should we forget about this table?
Lou
------------------------------
On Nov 15, 2007, at 7:00 PM, P T Withington wrote:
> ECMAScript is defined by a standard. There should be no
> confusion. The only confusion is due to my abbreviation.
>
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
>
> If I were a developer, I would be really upset if you told me I
> could not use any of the words in the LZX list as identifiers.
> That's a huge list. I can't possibly be expected to memorize it
> and avoid it. I doubt any of our internal developers give this
> list a second thought. I would not call these 'reserved' words.
>
> The ECMA reserved words really are reserved. You can't use them as
> identifiers. They are keywords. The same way you can't have a
> variable named `(` you can't have one named `with`. The compiler
> will not let you. (For that reason, it's not really important to
> have this list, since the compiler will complain whether you know
> what is on the list or not.)
>
> The LZX list is not reserved in this sense at all. If I want to
> have a local variable named `LzView`, I can, and that will not
> break anything. In fact, in 4.x I can even clobber the global
> LzView, and everything will continue to work just fine. That
> global is only there for backward compatibility. When you make a
> <view> tag, we look up lz.view. And we advise you to do the same
> when dynamically instantiating a view.
>
> So now the LZX list basically boils down to a list of the
> properties of and LZX class. If you are using such a class, you
> can get that list from the doc about the class.
>
> I guess I really don't see the point of the LZX table...
>
> On 2007-11-15, at 17:26 EST, Benjamin Shine wrote:
>
>>
>> Granted, the list of script vs lzx reserved words should be
>> separate, but they should be co-located. A developer is not
>> interested in why it's a different kind of bad idea to say
>> "package" than "thaw".
>>
>> Similarly, it's not sufficient to say to a developer, "it's the
>> ecmascript3 of reserved words plus 'mixin'" because of the wide
>> variety of online discussions about ecmascript versions -- google
>> "ecmascript 3 reserved words" for a sample of the confusion.
>>
>> -ben (thinking like David)
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2007, at 2:10 PM, P T Withington wrote:
>>
>>> Please _don't_ merge this list with the ecmascript chapter. The
>>> ecmascript chapter should be confined to talking about script.
>>>
>>> This list is not really a list of reserved words. It is a list
>>> of the defined classes and class attributes in the LFC. They are
>>> not reserved, in that you can freely clobber them if you must...
>>> although you risk breaking the LFC if you do.
>>>
>>> The ecma reserved words are for script and they really are
>>> reserved. The compiler will complain if you try to use one of
>>> those reserved words as an identifier. (We really should not
>>> need this list, since it is just the es3 list. We should just
>>> have a list of the reserved words we have added, which should be
>>> just one: 'mixin'.)
>>>
>>> On 2007-11-15, at 16:58 EST, Benjamin Shine wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not approved, sorry.
>>>> Content issue: this chapter partially replicates information in
>>>> developers/ecmascript-and-lzx.html, especially the
>>>> Reserved Words table:
>>>> http://localhost:8080/trunk/docs/developers/ecmascript-and-
>>>> lzx.html#d0e3546 (probably a different anchor on your machine)
>>>>
>>>> Tools issue: this reserved words appendix doesn't appear in the
>>>> table of contents for the developer's guide, nor in the list of
>>>> appendices, http://localhost:8080/trunk/docs/developers/
>>>> developers.appendices.html
>>>>
>>>> ...but I don't know why.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest merging the reserved words list you just generated
>>>> into the existing ecmascript chapter. However, Tucker or Max
>>>> should review the ecmascript chapter, because our story w/r/t
>>>> ecmascript has changed dramatically in the last year, as as
>>>> ecmascript itself.
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 15, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Benjamin Shine wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking at Lou's changeset, but indeed, the only way to
>>>>> believe it is if it comes from the source somehow. That will
>>>>> have to wait until after ringding; I have filed it on myself as
>>>>> LPP-5121, for "future."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2007, at 10:15 AM, P T Withington wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't check this. Maybe Ben (cc-ed) is so familiar with the
>>>>>> doc that he can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know how this table was generated, but the only way I
>>>>>> would believe it would be if it were generated somehow from
>>>>>> the source code. Surely we don't want this to be verified by
>>>>>> a human? They are too prone to errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we actually need a table like this, it needs to be
>>>>>> generated automatically by the doc tools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2007-11-15, at 07:43 EST, Lou Iorio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Tucker,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you check this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: John Sundman <jsundman at laszlosystems.com>
>>>>>>>> Date: November 15, 2007 8:30:18 AM GMT-04:00
>>>>>>>> To: Lou Iorio <liorio at laszlosystems.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Benjamin Shine <ben at laszlosystems.com>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Laszlo-dev] For Review: Change 20071115-lou-5
>>>>>>>> Summary: Document reserved words in 4.x
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lou,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please send to Tucker and copy laszlo-dev.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jrs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2007, at 4:12 AM, Lou Iorio wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can one of you check this to see if it's up to date (or
>>>>>>>>> suggest someone who should)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Lou Iorio <liorio at laszlosystems.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: November 15, 2007 4:36:39 AM GMT-04:00
>>>>>>>>>> To: Benjamin Shine <Ben at laszlosystems.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> John at laszlosystems.com
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: laszlo-dev at openlaszlo.org
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Laszlo-dev] For Review: Change 20071115-lou-5
>>>>>>>>>> Summary: Document reserved words in 4.x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Change 20071115-lou-5 by lou at loumac.local on 2007-11-15
>>>>>>>>>> 04:27:24 AST
>>>>>>>>>> in /Users/lou/src/svn/openlaszlo/trunk
>>>>>>>>>> for http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Summary: Document reserved words in 4.x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> New Features: Added AppendixÊC.ÊLZX reserved words
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bugs Fixed: LPP-4938
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Technical Reviewer: Ben Shine
>>>>>>>>>> QA Reviewer: (pending)
>>>>>>>>>> Doc Reviewer: John Sundman
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Details:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Converted html file http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/
>>>>>>>>>> tags/3.4.0/docs/src/hardpages/info-reservedwords.html
>>>>>>>>>> to docbook for inclusion in the dguide.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Modified index.dbk to make this Appendix C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Files:
>>>>>>>>>> A docs/src/developers/reservedlzx.dbk
>>>>>>>>>> M docs/src/developers/index.dbk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Changeset: http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/patches/
>>>>>>>>>> 20071115-lou-5.tar
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Laszlo-dev
mailing list