Le 01/10/2012 21:42, Brendan Eich a écrit : > 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? Try "typeof document.createElement('div').offsetParent" on IE6-8. I can't verify because I'm not Ubuntu right now, but if I recall it will give you "unknown". If it works, credit where it's due, John-David Dalton shared this to me a while ago. If it doesn't work, sorry for the noise. If I had to guess, I'd say it's been fixed in IE9, but I'm interested if someone can test.
David _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
