I forgot to keep the attribution line for my last message. "Trygve Lie" <[email protected]>
I'll just have to hope the Usenet nightstick stays in its glass case.... On Jan 21, 8:19 pm, "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've not read all of the ECMAScript specification document due to its > > nature so I am a bit puzzled; are "const" part of the ECMAScript standard > > or is it a Mozilla-specific extension as stated in the MDN doc? > > const is a reserved word according to ECMAScript 5 spec under 7.6.1.2 > > > If the later, a Mozilla-specific extension, I must say I find it a bit > > worrying that such a keyword is so vaguely marked as a Mozilla-specific > > extension in the MDN documentation. > > It is a wiki, feel free to try and update it > > > I do kinda start to get the feeling > > > that the MDN documentation have little separation between what is > > implemented in Mozilla engine and what is core JavaScript. > > #1 there isn't a "core JavaScript". But I'll assume you're referring > to what is in the ECMA standard and what is not. > #2 Browsers in common use all have extensions and/or broken > implementations of what is in the 3rd ed. spec > #3 Or don't even support the 5 ed. spec yet > > So the differentiation between what is "core" and what is not, isn't > very useful in practice. > > > Over at the > > node.js mailing list I've also seen people mixing up WebGL specific stuff > > with core JavaScript stuff due to documents they read at MDN. > > “Beware the man of one book.” -- St. Thomas Aquinas > > > Anybody else got this feeling? > > After 10 years....I'm pretty numb to it all. -- 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]
