I'll have a look after I get my 1.6 stuff done. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
