Having read through the warnings (and subsequently turned off the
strict mode), I have a final question on 1 of the warnings.

Function.prototype.bindAsEventListener = function(object) {

This method requires a parameter which is subsequently overwritten by
argument retrieval code, in exactly the same way as the preceding
method Function.prototype.bind, but this declaration does not have the
parameter defined.

As neither method has specific tests to make sure a parameter was
supplied, is it necessary for the bindAsEventListener to have the
parameter.

Again, I'm no expert, but I like consistency. Alternatively, would not
overwriting the object be just as efficient? Just args.shift() with no
assignment?

Put this at the bottom of the pile - it is not an urgent.

Regards,

Richard Quadling.

On 20/01/07, Thomas Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ahm, no.
>
> As there is no compiler involved, these "warnings" are generated by
> the JavaScript interpreter, and are purely meant for catching typos
> and other things. They are more annoying than helpful if you know
> what you're doing.
>
> Mind you, these warnings are purely out of the imagination of the
> developers of one particular browser, and if you get rid of these
> warnings, suddenly other warnings could pop up in the next browser
> version...
>
> Here's an article about it:
> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/strictJSFirefox.html
>
> We have perfectly valid JavaScript, so no need for a patch. Also, if
> something breaks in JavaScript in 5 years it will take half the
> internet down with it, so no need to have headaches over that... :)
>
> Best,
> Thomas
>
> Am 20.01.2007 um 09:56 schrieb Richard Quadling:
>
> > Would a patch to remove the notices be acceptable to the developers?
> > As a developer of commercial software for nearly 20 years and only
> > recently coming to web development, I am  still learning about what
> > different rules apply. One of the things I've always thought is that
> > if my code produces any sort of warnings now, there is always the
> > chance that in years to come those warnings could become errors. If
> > the compiler/interpreter is producing a warning, then I should code it
> > to remove the possibility of ambiguity. Whilst the code works fine,
> > removing these notices can only be a good thing.
> >
> > I don't want to turn off the notices as my own code sometimes has them
> > and I go "Doh! Duh!" and fit it. It would remove the noise and help
> > other developers who may not be as efficiently experienced and who do
> > make the sort of mistakes that these notices are highlighting.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > On 19/01/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Sorry, read the ill-formed sentence above as "Prototype framework
> >> is coded
> >> in perfectly valid JavaScript..."
> >>
> >> -M
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----
> > Richard Quadling
> > Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?
> > c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
> > "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>


-- 
-----
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to