Weird. Go ahead and commit. I will investigate afterwards. Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2009/07/14 00:00:03, MarkM wrote:
>>
>> LGTM, but see my question.
>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/93041/diff/2002/2004
>> File src/com/google/caja/cajita.js (right):
>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/93041/diff/2002/2004#newcode1373
>> Line 1373: if (obj[name + '_canRead___']) { return (name in obj); }
>> Why not do it by leaving the original line alone and putting
>
>> if (!(name in obj)) { return false; }
>
>> on the previous line? I think it would be observationally equivalent
>
> to what you
>>
>> wrote, but a bit more in the style of the rest of the access checking
>
> functions.
>
> Well, for some reason it isn't the same. If I write it as you suggest
> here, many tests fail, whereas they don't if I do it as in the CL. Feel
> free to look it over in more depth if you feel it's important.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/93041
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
