Damn, you stole my thunder. I made the same sort of argument when jlabanca
wanted to use Function.toString() to get reliably evaluable function text --
I said something like "there's no way in hell that's actually in the spec".
It still frightens me that I was completely wrong about that :)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM, James Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> FWIW, ECMA-262 says:
> 15.2.4.2 Object.prototype.toString ( )
> When the toString method is called, the following steps are taken:
> 1. Get the [[Class]] property of this object.
> 2. Compute a string value by concatenating the three strings "[object ",
> Result(1), and "]".
> 3. Return Result(2).
>
> and..
>
> 15.4.2.1 new Array ( [ item0 [ , item1 [ , … ] ] ] )
> This description applies if and only if the Array constructor is given no
> arguments or at least two
> arguments.
> The [[Prototype]] property of the newly constructed object is set to the
> original Array prototype
> object, the one that is the initial value of Array.prototype (15.4.3.1).
> The [[Class]] property of the newly constructed object is set to "Array".
>
> - James
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Joel Webber <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow. Just wow. It never ceases to amaze me how esoteric simple type
>>> introspection can be in Javascript :)
>>> Yes, we should patch this in, and perhaps as a side-effect encode this
>>> (and other?) Javascript type tests into the core module somewhere. I'll
>>> create an issue so we don't lose track, and take a stab at a patch
>>> momentarily.
>>>
>>
>> I worry about relying on the toString output to tell what type it is --
>> what if a future browser/JS engine changes it slightly?  Can we at least add
>> a test to verify this so at least we will know if it blows up?
>>
>> --
>> John A. Tamplin
>> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to