Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 30 September 2012 00:08, Brendan Eich<[email protected]> wrote:
I think this is too philosophical a discussion to result in a strong reason
to risk "symbol". Just my gut-check. Other TC39ers should weigh in (Andreas
R. especially).
Type "symbol" would be my preference, but it is difficult to estimate
(for me) whether that involves a risk.
However, this clearly is an issue beyond symbols alone. The same
problem re-arises whenever we have to add new primitive types in the
future. It doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy to fake any new
type ever into an object. Perhaps it is less harmful on the long run
if we took the chance to clarify _now_ that the set of strings
returned by 'typeof' is not fixed, and should not be treated as such?
I could go for that (see my "int64" and "uint64" argument).
And as noted, IE has softened up the developers, or so I hear.
Someone who knows more should weigh in. I even heard that in IE JScript
(or possibly even IE9/10 Chakra -- "JavaScript"), typeof can return
"unknown"! True?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
