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
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_draft but
looking at it again, I think that both interpretations are contextually assumed
for different lines of the algorithm. I'll make
The new errata is now available at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft
Allen
-Original Message-
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Allen Wirfs-Brock
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:56 PM
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
5 matches
Mail list logo
