We know...I proposed the change to the ES3.1 (to make the terminology used by object literals and attribute descriptors consistent) and made sure that IE8 could and would digest the change before it reaches RTM...
Allen >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:es-discuss- >[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich >Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:30 AM >To: Anne van Kesteren; Alex Russell >Cc: Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK); es-discuss Steen >Subject: Re: ES3.1 Draft: 15 Jan 2009 "MountainView" version available > >On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:40:29 +0100, Alex Russell >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:25 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>> FWIW, it seems there is a mismatch between the draft and what >>>> Internet Explorer 8 appears to be shipping or maybe I am >>>> misunderstanding something. >>>> >>>> http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/01/ie8-getters-setters >>>> >>>> That is, section 8.10.5 uses "get" and "set" as keywords where >>>> Internet Explorer 8 uses "getter" and "setter" according to its >>>> documentation. >>>> >>>> (Section 11.1.5 pretty much has to use "get" and "set" because of >>>> three shipping implementations.) >>> >>> ES3.1 isn't settled yet, but surely using the terminology from what >>> will be the next JS spec seems best...and in this case that's what >>> MSFT did, I think rightly. It is super annoying that they didn't >>> include the get/set aliases for compat, thought. >> >> Your comment confuses me, but it seems the MSDN documentation was >> wrong and IE8 will use "get" and "set" as per the latest draft, so >> all is fine. > >Good to hear it's just a doc bug. Plus, IE8 is still in beta and can >be fixed. > >Alex, you caved a bit prematurely to the putative market leader (IE8 >needs to release and displace IE7 before it could claim that >title) :-/. We are not all working in Ecma TC39 on a spec just so a de- >facto standard different from it can be forced at the same time >through distribution. The only right[ly] thing would be to fix IE8 to >match the spec, if this had been a real code bug. > >/be > >_______________________________________________ >Es-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
