> They were duly marked invalid, because the problem was with the expectations, > not the behavior...
It's a design bug. I know, impossible to fix. I consider such things valid bugs, even if no action can be taken on them. > because reality does not match what they had been told Reality didn't match what was intuitive. I'd say it is a DX flaw. Honestly though, I don't know what a fix would be. I'm not sure I even know what "globalThis" means now. :) On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:52 AM Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/16/19 12:52 PM, #!/JoePea wrote: > > That's the thing: the only people that may get confused are Ecmascript > > and JS-Engine experts who know the internals very intimately. > > No, it's just people who have functions return values they do not expect. > > > and for those people that could possibly get confused, it would be > > because they are familiar with browser internals (or hit a browser > > *bug* like you describe) > > No, you misunderstand. The bug reports were filed because the behavior > was not what people expected. They were duly marked invalid, because > the problem was with the expectations, not the behavior... > > > For all intents and purpose, every developer I've talked to, and every > > article I've read, treats things like `window` as the global object. > > And this is mostly fine as long as you don't call functions from > navigated-away-from windows. Which most people don't, most of the time. > And when they do, they get _very_ confused by the results, because > reality does not match what they had been told. > > But that doesn't mean we should double down on telling them things that > don't match reality. > > > I strongly believe that things should be made intuitive for the vast > > majority of users > > I agree, but in this specific context, what does that mean in terms of > concrete proposals you are making? > > -Boris _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
