profile
viewpoint
If you are wondering where the data of this site comes from, please visit https://api.github.com/users/mattijs/events. GitMemory does not store any data, but only uses NGINX to cache data for a period of time. The idea behind GitMemory is simply to give users a better reading experience.

mattijs/node-rsync 259

Rsync wrapper for Node.js

mattijs/node-terminal 26

Terminal control for node.js scripts

mattijs/proximo 2

Model implementation for node.js using the best of Backbone and Harmony proxies

mattijs/homebrew-cask 1

a friendly homebrew-style CLI workflow for the administration of Mac applications distributed as binaries

mattijs/hubot 1

A customizable, kegerator-powered life embetterment robot.

mattijs/stringwarp 1

Warp in some additional String features.

mattijs/agendas 0

TC39 meeting agendas

push eventtc39/agendas

Michael Saboff

commit sha 7d271f18d8a5c74ee852b9618679ef5ed1f5a628

Update 05.md MLS schedule constraints.

view details

push time in an hour

issue openedatlas-engineer/nyxt

Is there a problem on the instructions to clone cl-webengine?

Hi,

I am trying to follow the Standard Developer Installation Readme in order to run Nyxt locally from the source code.

On the cl-webengine installation part, there is the following instruction:

git clone git@github.com:atlas-engineer/cl-webengine.git

It did not work for me. I received this error message:

Warning: Permanently added the RSA host key for IP address '#{Some IP address} ' to the list of known hosts. git@github.com: Permission denied (publickey). fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists.

Instead, I did just:

$ git clone https://github.com/atlas-engineer/cl-webengine.git It seems to work. I downloaded the files and the version control history.

Is it problematic to do the way I did?

Why the approach by the book did not work? Did I miss something with cryptography?

Thanks.

created time in 2 hours

issue closedapple/swift-collections

Circular Queue

Circular Queue is an extension of the Queue data structure in which the last item is connected with the first item or the first index comes right after the last index. We can consider it like a Ring Buffer.

Circular Queue definition

The same can be written in Swift as well using a Ring Buffer Extension.

The following code deals with Circular Queue:

`struct RingBufferQueue<T>: CustomStringConvertible {

private var elements: [T?]
private var front = -1
private var rear = -1

init(count: Int) {
    elements = Array(repeating: nil, count: count)
}

var isEmpty: Bool {
    front == -1 && rear == -1
}

var isFull: Bool {
    ((rear + 1) % elements.count) == front
}

var description: String {
    if isEmpty { return "Queue is empty..." }
    return "---- Queue start ----\n"
        + elements.map({String(describing: "\($0)")}).joined(separator: " -> ")
        + "\n---- Queue End ----\n"
}

var peek: T? {
    if isEmpty { return nil }
    return elements[front]
}

}

extension RingBufferQueue {

// to enqueue an element
mutating func enqueue(_ element: T) -> Bool {
    
    // if queue is empty
    if front == -1 && rear == -1 {
        front = 0
        rear = 0
        elements[rear] = element
        return true
    }
    
    if isFull {
        print("QUEUE IS FULL")
        return false
    }
    
    rear = (rear + 1) % elements.count
    elements[rear] = element
    return true
}

}

extension RingBufferQueue {

// to dequeue an element
mutating func dequeue() -> T? {
    
    if isEmpty {
        print("QUEUE IS EMPTY")
        return nil
    }
    
    // if queue has only single element
    if front == rear {
        defer {
            elements[front] = nil
            front = -1
            rear = -1
        }
        return elements[front]
    }
    
    defer {
        elements[front] = nil
        front = (front + 1) % elements.count
    }
    return elements[front]
}

} `

Note : Modifications can be made to the above code as it is generic in nature.

closed time in 2 hours

anantcodes

issue commentapple/swift-collections

Circular Queue

Like Kyle said, this package already implements this data structure.

The enqueue method corresponds to Deque.append(_:), while dequeue corresponds to Deque.removeFirst().

anantcodes

comment created time in 2 hours

pull request commentapple/swift-collections

Fix compilation under BUILD_LIBRARY_FOR_DISTRIBUTION flag

Building for distribution is not a simple decision -- it includes ABI compatibility promises that the implementations in this package aren't yet prepared to make.

Can you tell me why you need to distribute this package in binary form?

srdanrasic

comment created time in 2 hours

startednalgeon/sqlean

started time in 4 hours

PR opened tc39/proposal-realms

Reviewers
Meta: This is a workaround for ecmarkup to render the appropriate table

a direct <emu-xref href="#table-internal-slots-of-ecmascript-function-objects"></emu-xref> is not rendering any text.

+11 -1

0 comment

2 changed files

pr created time in 4 hours

create barnchtc39/proposal-realms

branch : leo/missing-op

created branch time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-realms

leobalter

commit sha d55ba411bfadc5f2b293a08cf637c8920661557b

deploy: 33017f50e3d889622881e8efa7b6add1fc28571a

view details

push time in 4 hours

delete branch tc39/proposal-realms

delete branch : stage3-review-feedback

delete time in 4 hours

PR merged tc39/proposal-realms

Reviewers
Address review feedback

Ref #304

Address review feedback from @ljharb.


why do you need to wrap the completion record value in a new record, as opposed to just passing on the completion record (when its type is normal or return)?

This seems like a bug, I'm removing the Completion wrapping.

Additionally, since the only possible types of completion record from the invocation is "abrupt" or "normal or return", it kind of seems like you could branch on whether it's abrupt, and not have to explicitly mention normal/return.

I'd say for the editorial style. If check if the type is abrupt, I'd be compelled to add an assertion step saying completion type must be normal or return to clarity it won't be "continue or break". The positive if for normal or return makes the spec steps more clear. I'd prefer to defer this decision to an eventual PR to ECMA-262 if possible.

Can eval, Function, and https://tc39.es/proposal-realms/#sec-performrealmeval be made to maximally share steps/AOs? It seems like it'd be helpful if they could all be expressed in terms of the same operation(s).

I agree the 3 of them seem good enough to make an abstraction, but this also seems more appropriate to a PR to ECMA-262? I can add an editorial note to point out the intention.

Should the name of the [[Realm]] slot be the same on functions and Realm instances? Perhaps it should, if it's holding the same types of values, but perhaps it'd be better to differentiate the two?

Thanks for catching this! We don't need this [[Realm]] internal in Wrapped Function Exotic Objects so I'm removing it for now. With some further review, the name would actually create weird hazard in Realm.prototype.evaluate.

"Perform" is typically the verb associated with calling an AO and ignoring any non-abrupt return value. Can https://tc39.es/proposal-realms/#sec-performrealmimportvalue start with something besides "Perform"?

Trying to not bikeshed too much over the name, I'm renaming the abstraction to RealmImportValue, an alternative would be ImportRealmValue but I don't think there is no perfect option here.

I'm not sure what all the "Extensible web:" phrases are in the notes - we don't have this anywhere in the spec, and it doesn't link anywhere. What's the purpose of that note prefix?

These are just editorial notes to help connecting to the ongoing integration with HTML, I don't think they should all be part of the final PR to ECMA-262.

In https://tc39.es/proposal-realms/#sec-hostimportmodulebindingdynamically: the "failure path" sentence reads oddly to me, and I'm not sure what it means exactly. Also, for the "success path" case, should the completion record's type be constrained to be "normal"?

Note taken. I'm gonna try to address this abstraction in a separate PR as I also have feedback from @syg about it.

+14 -13

1 comment

1 changed file

leobalter

pr closed time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-realms

Leo Balter

commit sha 33017f50e3d889622881e8efa7b6add1fc28571a

Address review feedback (#306) Co-authored-by: Jordan Harband <ljharb@gmail.com>

view details

push time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/agendas

Shane F. Carr

commit sha cbbec6ce7fe58c470c13654683ff7d175f718f27

Punt NFv3 to July meeting to allow more time for reviews

view details

push time in 4 hours

pull request commenttc39/ecma402

Normative: handle awkward rounding behavior

That's reasonable; thanks. You can add a :heavy_minus_sign: to the wiki page then.

ryzokuken

comment created time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/agendas

Frank Yung-Fong Tang

commit sha 5b9fd2abedf137f92a1beacf2b569ba4ef66bc82

Update 05.md

view details

push time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/agendas

Frank Yung-Fong Tang

commit sha ba53008a5f20bf6ed8e4ad12387108ab60ae39a7

Move Intl Enumeration API to update only

view details

push time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-realms

Leo Balter

commit sha 93aef743ccd1f3a88add2bca6a35c1ba5e0f3ec5

Simplify completion record usage for consistency

view details

push time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-intl-numberformat-v3

Shane F. Carr

commit sha 4e9c277c122c31a77ae596b0c3b6eb84df40a35b

Update base according to tc39/ecma402/pull/575

view details

Shane F. Carr

commit sha e98471087e09bc7a2d9f1d34601436bb87d8b2e3

Incorporate "Additional refactor of [[RoundingType]]"

view details

Shane F. Carr

commit sha a6ec8568147ac467619b44068c50996f1770a46c

Changes in SetNumberFormatDigitOptions

view details

push time in 4 hours

Pull request review commenttc39/proposal-realms

Address review feedback

 <h1>[[Call]] ( _thisArgument_, _argumentsList_ )</h1> 			1. Let _wrappedThisArgument_ to ? GetWrappedValue(_targetRealm_, _thisArgument_). 			1. Let _result_ be the Completion Record of Call(_target_, _wrappedThisArgument_, _argumentsList_). 			1. If _result_.[[Type]] is ~normal~ or _result_.[[Type]] is ~return~, then-				1. Set _value_ to NormalCompletion(_result_.[[Value]]). 				1. Return ? GetWrappedValue(_callerRealm_, _value_).

f11bbef

leobalter

comment created time in 4 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-realms

Leo Balter

commit sha f11bbefdc99633c01c2e81d76ee02b17476c4826

Fix result

view details

push time in 4 hours

Pull request review commenttc39/proposal-realms

Address review feedback

 <h1>[[Call]] ( _thisArgument_, _argumentsList_ )</h1> 			1. Let _wrappedThisArgument_ to ? GetWrappedValue(_targetRealm_, _thisArgument_). 			1. Let _result_ be the Completion Record of Call(_target_, _wrappedThisArgument_, _argumentsList_). 			1. If _result_.[[Type]] is ~normal~ or _result_.[[Type]] is ~return~, then-				1. Set _value_ to NormalCompletion(_result_.[[Value]]). 				1. Return ? GetWrappedValue(_callerRealm_, _value_).

value disappears, I need to send _result_ here

leobalter

comment created time in 4 hours

pull request commenttc39/proposal-realms

Address review feedback

@ljharb: Can those "extensible web" notes be marked as editors notes then? that way they can't possibly show up in the rendered main spec, and they'll get special styling to note them as such

done! 53da06d

leobalter

comment created time in 5 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-realms

Leo Balter

commit sha 53da06d08eeb691d97fb7de3e63960698465a94d

Add editors markup to 'extensible web' notes

view details

push time in 5 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-realms

Leo Balter

commit sha d60ac8148068514b09a317b6a9dcbb86bf90d8a3

Update spec.html Co-authored-by: Jordan Harband <ljharb@gmail.com>

view details

push time in 5 hours

push eventtc39/proposal-realms

Leo Balter

commit sha 979371a51fb9c9a869cc402201c15f0ea9007872

fixup! Editorial note about performEval abstraction

view details

push time in 5 hours

Pull request review commenttc39/proposal-realms

Address review feedback

 <h1>[[Call]] ( _thisArgument_, _argumentsList_ )</h1> 			1. Let _wrappedThisArgument_ to ? GetWrappedValue(_targetRealm_, _thisArgument_). 			1. Let _result_ be the Completion Record of Call(_target_, _wrappedThisArgument_, _argumentsList_). 			1. If _result_.[[Type]] is ~normal~ or _result_.[[Type]] is ~return~, then-				1. Set _value_ to NormalCompletion(_result_.[[Value]]).+				1. Set _value_ to _result_.[[Value]].

this step can be removed entirely, since completion records get implicitly converted to have .[[Value]]

leobalter

comment created time in 5 hours

Pull request review commenttc39/proposal-realms

Address review feedback

 <h1>Wrapped Function Exotic Objects</h1> 			Callable Object 		</td> 		<td>-			The wrapped function object.+			Stores the callable object from the other Realm. 		</td> 		</tr> 		<tr> 		<td>-			[[Realm]]+			[[Call]]

I added [[Call]] to the table to acknowledge the different behavior

leobalter

comment created time in 5 hours

issue commenttc39/proposal-realms

Stage 3 Reviewers

@ljharb Thanks for the review! I opened #306 with detailed comments.

leobalter

comment created time in 5 hours

PR opened tc39/proposal-realms

Reviewers
Address review feedback

Ref #304

Address review feedback from @ljharb.


why do you need to wrap the completion record value in a new record, as opposed to just passing on the completion record (when its type is normal or return)?

This seems like a bug, I'm removing the Completion wrapping.

Additionally, since the only possible types of completion record from the invocation is "abrupt" or "normal or return", it kind of seems like you could branch on whether it's abrupt, and not have to explicitly mention normal/return.

I'd say for the editorial style. If check if the type is abrupt, I'd be compelled to add an assertion step saying completion type must be normal or return to clarity it won't be "continue or break". The positive if for normal or return makes the spec steps more clear. I'd prefer to defer this decision to an eventual PR to ECMA-262 if possible.

Can eval, Function, and https://tc39.es/proposal-realms/#sec-performrealmeval be made to maximally share steps/AOs? It seems like it'd be helpful if they could all be expressed in terms of the same operation(s).

I agree the 3 of them seem good enough to make an abstraction, but this also seems more appropriate to a PR to ECMA-262? I can add an editorial note to point out the intention.

Should the name of the [[Realm]] slot be the same on functions and Realm instances? Perhaps it should, if it's holding the same types of values, but perhaps it'd be better to differentiate the two?

Thanks for catching this! We don't need this [[Realm]] internal in Wrapped Function Exotic Objects so I'm removing it for now. With some further review, the name would actually create weird hazard in Realm.prototype.evaluate.

"Perform" is typically the verb associated with calling an AO and ignoring any non-abrupt return value. Can https://tc39.es/proposal-realms/#sec-performrealmimportvalue start with something besides "Perform"?

Trying to not bikeshed too much over the name, I'm renaming the abstraction to RealmImportValue, an alternative would be ImportRealmValue but I don't think there is no perfect option here.

I'm not sure what all the "Extensible web:" phrases are in the notes - we don't have this anywhere in the spec, and it doesn't link anywhere. What's the purpose of that note prefix?

These are just editorial notes to help connecting to the ongoing integration with HTML, I don't think they should all be part of the final PR to ECMA-262.

In https://tc39.es/proposal-realms/#sec-hostimportmodulebindingdynamically: the "failure path" sentence reads oddly to me, and I'm not sure what it means exactly. Also, for the "success path" case, should the completion record's type be constrained to be "normal"?

Note taken. I'm gonna try to address this abstraction in a separate PR as I also have feedback from @syg about it.

+11 -9

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in 5 hours

create barnchtc39/proposal-realms

branch : stage3-review-feedback

created branch time in 5 hours