On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
to list -
I am not the one replying to sender only -- all of my replies to you have
cc'ed the list.
I know. I had a mistake and hit 'Reply'. Then, realizing that, I put
the message back on the list.
You have replied twice to me only, then resent as
reply-alls. What mailer are you using?
Sorry, it was an accident. I meant to put it on the list and hit
'Reply'. I would not mind if you mail me personally. I just had a
mistake.
I'm using GMail. I need a web based mailer because I use multiple
machines and usually mobile. I'm open to suggestions for a better
mailer or alternative to gmail.
[snip]
My shell example is not the parades plural referenced above, merely a demo
of fail-soft behavior. The unknown web scripts that might depend on that
behavior could be doing useful work based on the current semantics (having
parades).
Your point seemed clear (at least to me). I know the idiom rain on
their parade. It is possible that someone expects that behavior , and
in fact, that behavior is guaranteed by the current spec.
How do you address these concern? Is it better to fail fast or fail
later? If later, and in the case or attempting to set a ReadOnly
property, then should the failure be silent? (String example). What
about the NodeList example?
This is not a green-field design exercise. My point is that browsers do what
ES1-3 said (depending on the Array method; generics were there all along,
but some were added IIRC after ES1). Code tends to depend on detailed
semantics (not always, but more often than you'd think). Why rock the boat?
I'm just trying to figure out what the best way to handle error
condition. It's somewhat related to what Pratap brought up:
| The side effect is as follows:
| if this does not have a length property, it ends up getting one;
| if this does have a length property, but is not an Array, that
| length property will get updated.
| What is the rationale for this?
Leads to thinking about API design.
I guess it's not bad the way it is. Anyone calling pop() on a NodeList
can get what should be expected. OTOH, maybe it's worth considering if
a better alternative exists.
What is a green-field design exercise?
Garrett
/be
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
