JS is very much like writing with a pen (traditionally speaking). We can only try to make less errors as we move forward, but what’s there it’s there and it’s either too expensive or impossible to change.
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Benjamin Gruenaum wrote: > >> That's good to know and it's good to know I'm not the first one to spot this. >> >> While we're visiting the spec on that: >> >> Why is it specified that "When called as a constructor it creates a new >> ordinary object. When Object is called as a function rather than as a >> constructor, it performs a type conversion." - wouldn't it make more sense >> to remove that or specify "behaves the same way"? > > yes, probably > >> >> Where is it actually explained what Object does when called as a constructor? > > It doesn't because the behavior is seem in both cases. > > Step 1 of > http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-object-value > <http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-object-value> is > looking for the case of a `super()` call from a subclass constructor. > >> >> The difference - at least in the phrasing of Object vs Array seems to be >> just as present in the latest spec draft from what I can tell. > > Yes, the Object description still contains some ancient language that should > probably be removed in the future as it adds not (except perhaps confusion) > to the spec. > > Allen > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
