correct, according to the spec, JDD's test should report true. What language in the spec. lead you to think otherwise?
Allen On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Luke Hoban wrote: > My interpretation of these spec sections: > > (new bound) instanceof bound > => (new Bar()) instanceof bound // bind's Construct defers to the > targetFunction and ignores bound thisValue > => bound.[[HasInstance]](new Bar()) // meaning of instanceof > => Bar.[[HasInstance]](new Bar()) // bind's HasInstance defers to the > targetFunction > => true // normal HasInstance > > Similarly for 'new bound instanceof Bar'. IE and Firefox both appear to > agree with this result. > > Luke > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of John-David Dalton > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Function#bind [[HasInstance]] question. > > Sorry about the last empty reply, GMail got ahead of itself :D > > So Chrome and Firefox disagree on their Function#bind implementation. > http://es5.github.com/#x15.3.4.5.2 > http://es5.github.com/#x15.3.4.5.3 > > ~~~ js > function Bar() { > return 1; > } > var bound = Bar.bind({}); > new bound instanceof bound; // Firefox reports `true`, Chrome `false` (I > think Chrome is right) new bound instance of Bar; // Firefox and Chrome > report `true` ~~~ > > The test262 doesn't appear to cover this case. > What is the correct result of `new bound instance of bound;` and why? > > -JDD > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
