On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Mark S. Miller<[email protected]> wrote: > > Weird. Go ahead and commit. I will investigate afterwards. Thanks.
woah. I do not think it is wise to commit code that works for reasons you do not understand. > > 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 >
