On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > I don't need to run it to confirm. It definitely "unknown" ;) > David > _______________________________________________ > 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
