On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:37 PM, Michael Daumling wrote: > I can only speak for ExtendScript. E4X was implemented according to > ECMA-357 2nd edition, and it is tested using the SpiderMonkey test > suite. Unfortunately, the ECMA Web site does not offer any errata > documents, so I am not aware of their existence. So there is hope that > ExtendScript is compatible with SpiderMonkey re E4X :-)
The tests are good but coverage is what you should expect from hand- written unit/basic-functional tests, plus regression tests. We've found and fixed stuff that was clearly not anticipated by the spec authors (including the ability to make cyclic XML structures), and hairier edge-case by fuzz-testing. > Are there any plans to revisit and update ECMA-357? E4X has shown > to be > extremely useful as such. After ES4. See also http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php? id=clarification:type_system#relax-ng_types /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
