On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Per last meeting I understood that constructors without new should > probably not work to make subclassing easier (my understanding of that > is still somewhat limited, I'll get there). I filed > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22808 on IDL to see if > this was possible for the platform side of things. > > I now see that ArrayBuffer() is defined as doing the equivalent thing > to new ArrayBuffer() in the ES6 draft, despite e.g. Chrome currently > throwing for the former. (This is equivalent to today's story for e.g. > XMLHttpRequest.)
Actually, the algorithm in the current (Rev16) draft does not treat these as equivalent. ArrayBuffer( ) will thrown according to the algorithm. However, there is an issue in Rev16 in that the prose description in 15.13.5.still said that ArrayBuffer ( ) and new ArrayBuffer( ) are equivalent. That's simply an editorial bug that has already been corrected in my working draft for Rev17. A good example, of why I try to minimize redundant prose descriptions and why reader should always use the algorithms as the primary definition. Allen > > What exactly is the plan here? > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
