For consistency sake I agree, but I come from a world where browsers also exposed unofficially APIs so that, as James mentioned already, ` Array.prototype.includes` would have returned true and never worked.
I wonder how reliable is `CSS.supports` not just in term of syntax, but actual usability. Best Regards On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Andrea Giammarchi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 to Kyle proposal, using eval or Function is not even an option in CSP > > constrained environments ( unless the relative code is provided as > SHA256, > > then we need to agree on how such code should look like and share it as > > polyfill ) > > > > I'd also suggest `Reflect.isValidSyntax` as alternative to > > `Reflect.supports` 'cause it's less misleading when it comes to figure > out > > APIs support and their implementation. > > > > After all, that's exactly what we'd like to know, if a generic syntax > will > > break or not. > > CSS has an exactly analogous feature already, and calls it > CSS.supports(). That's a decent reason to stick with supports() as > the name. > > ~TJ >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
