On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
If a field is absent then the result of any test of its value is logically
false.
I believe there are two plausible ways to interpret this: any evaluation of
desc.[[Something]] when there is no [[Something]] field returns
-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: [[DefineOwnProperty]] wording nit
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
If a field is absent then the result of any test of its value is
logically
false.
I believe there are two plausible ways to interpret this: any
evaluation
To: Jason Orendorff; Jeff Walden
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: RE: [[DefineOwnProperty]] wording nit
Thanks for reading carefully.
There is already a fix to the note listed in the errata at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draf
t but looking at it again, I
On 17.9.09 12:15 , Jason Orendorff wrote:
The difference shows up in step 7b, whose wording is:
Reject, if the [[Enumerable]] fields of current and Desc are the Boolean
negation of each other.
Under the first interpretation, if there is no [[Enumerable]] field in Desc,
then never Reject.
-Original Message-
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Walden
...
Perhaps modifying step 7b to explicitly say Reject, if [[Enumerable]]
is present in Desc and..., is a less arcane approach to fixing this.
(That might not be
If a field is absent then the result of any test of its value is logically
false.
I believe there are two plausible ways to interpret this: any evaluation of
desc.[[Something]] when there is no [[Something]] field returns the value
false, or the result of any comparison which evaluates
6 matches
Mail list logo
