[embarrassed] I completely agree,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Ben Laurie<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
