My point is that void(0) or void 0, is not (that) used in the real world. @peter, @matthias... I know that about undefined. It's a good info for others that don't know, though.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Peter van der Zee <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Adrian Olaru <[email protected]> wrote: > >> or you just write undefined instead of void(0) or void 0. > > > Minor fyi: > While true, do note that in most cases, this incurs a (minor!) overhead for > lookup (because undefined is actually a global variable) while void(0) is an > operator and doesn't have this overhead. (The security issue was > already addressed by Matthias.) > > Note that you could compare undefined with null using "weak" comparison > (==). In this tool ( http://jscoercion.qfox.nl ) you can see that only > (the real) undefined and null will result in true, when compared to > something that should be undefined (or null ;). And I think `null` is > cleaner than `void(0)`. But note that it won't be equal in strict comparison > (===). > > - peter > > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<jsmentors%[email protected]> > -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
