Regards -- Irakli Gozalishvili Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ On Monday, 2012-11-12 at 14:30 , Brendan Eich wrote: > Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: > > Lately I have being struggling with an implementation differences of > > host (DOM) objects across the browsers. > > So far only reliable way I could find to identify host objects is by a > > following assertion: > > > > object.constructor.call === void(0) > > Wow, that's not bad (except for the overparenthesized 0 :-P). > > > Behaviour seems to be consistent across FF, Opera, Safari, and Chrome > > (Don't have windows to test on IE). > > I think it would be great if there was some standardised way to > > identify host objects. > > > > > There does seem to be some fuzzy need, but given jQuery's isPlainObject > (http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.isPlainObject/) the way people check varies. > > > My personal use case is polymorphic method dispatch > > library https://github.com/Gozala/method that has same semantics as > > clojure protocols. Method implementations for host objects and > > built-ins are stored in the separate dictionary to avoid memory leaks > > and to support objects from diff JS contexts / frames / compartments. > > > > > Doesn't the latter (cross-frame/etc.) need affect native objects too? Yes it does and method implementations for built-ins are also stored in a separate hash. Detecting built-ins seems to be a lot easier though since Object.prototype.toString.call(value) returns "[object Error]", "[object Number]", … etc... > > /be > > > If you know of a better of identifying host objects I would really > > love to know that too. > > > > Regards > > -- > > Irakli Gozalishvili > > Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
