There's 3 open issues<http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/list?can=2&q=jsonparser>on JSONParser.
While we're in there, it seems like we should hit #1749. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Joel Webber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
