On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Eric Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> Calling it a "javascript object" implies that a function should be a valid > property type. However, this provides an interesting use case for the > Function constructor since it allows the creation of functions without a > closure context. Of course, this would severely limit the interoperability > with other backends and open up a whole can of eval worms... > It's just a name - squint your eyes. I'm not suggesting to allow functions... -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
