Hi Derrell,
Am 18.01.2009 um 20:42 schrieb Derrell Lipman:
> It's also perfectly legal, however, as with any object, to add
> additional methods to Array's prototype, and I don't believe that
> the spec says whether these new methods should or shouldn't be
> enumerated with for/in when using an array. (I would argue that they
> shouldn't be, and that it's a bug in IE that they are, but that's a
> separate issue.)
I'm not sure whether these methods should be enumerated or not.
> Given that IE does behave differently than Firefox in this area, I
> agree with you that qoxodoo should not add methods to the Array
> prototype. I believe that you and I both argued that long ago. At
> this point, however, it would be a huge backwards-compatibility hit
> to remove them.
Agreed.
> I would recommend that they be removed in 0.9 with migration scripts
> to correct the array method usage to static function usage.
Good idea.
> For qooxdoo use right now, if one wants to use for/in, the following
> usage model might be appropriate:
>
> var a = new Array();
> var x = new Array();
> a[23] = 42;
> for (var i in a)
> {
> if (! isNaN(parseInt(i)))
> {
> x.push(i + ": " + a[i]);
> }
> }
> alert(x.join('\n'));
Sorry, but this is ugly as hell :-) Better stick to saying "don't use
for ... in on arrays with qooxdoo" ;-)
Regards,
Andreas J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
