Another pretty nice console wrapper is: https://github.com/amadeus/dbg
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Barry van Oudtshoorn < [email protected]> wrote: > I have a console wrapper that I've shared here before, if you're > interested -- http://jsfiddle.net/yx5a9/5/ . > > For the record, my check is: |if (window.console && console[type] && > console[type].apply) { ... }|. I've shared it here before, but its big > advantage is that it has a toString method; elsewhere, I've bound an > application alert to [Ctrl]+[Shift]+[`] that shows the results of toString. > It makes debugging in IE infinitely simpler. :) > > > On 05/01/11 21:45, Ger Hobbelt wrote: > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Ger Hobbelt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Steve Onnis <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Why don’t you use typeof(console.info) to make sure it is what you are >>> expecting >>> >>> >>> Compare to the old skool browser sniff (if it's UA X then we got B) >> indirect checks versus direct (does this bugger have method B?) checks >> regarding DOM access functions. >> > > BTW: if I'd been 100% anal/paranoid about it, it would have been this > check instead: > > typeof(console) !== 'undefined' && typeof(console.info) !== 'undefined' > && typeof(console.info.apply) === 'function' > > where the last part /probably/ would have been done as > > && typeof(console.info.apply) !== 'undefined' > > Since there's already one object in there (console.info) which you can > treat as a function, I'd dial expectations down as far as "you either get > 'undefined' out of typeof or some other crap" and code this with that > mindset in charge. > > > -- > Met vriendelijke groeten / Best regards, > > Ger Hobbelt > > -------------------------------------------------- > web: http://www.hobbelt.com/ > http://www.hebbut.net/ > mail: [email protected] > mobile: +31-6-11 120 978 > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > Barry van Oudtshoornwww.barryvan.com.au > > Not sent from my Apple πPhone. > >
