Hi,
I've been working on a unit test framework recently.
The lack of a more developer-friendly representation of objects than
the one obtained through their toString method (or by calling
Object.prototype.toString) made me long for an ES equivalent of Ruby's
inspect instance method.
I se
On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
In their code generation scheme, do they ever require the generated
function to have a particular non-global scope, or will global
scope do?
Are you really talking about "scopes" in the f
From: Juriy Zaytsev [mailto:kan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 11:32 AM
...
My initial test tries to rule out exactly all of the "ECMAScript language
types" except an Object one - Undefined, Null, Boolean, String and Number. I
think of these types as of "primitives", therefore `is
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Your understand in your last paragraph is correct.
In general, the term “type” used in the specification is referring
to the categorization of values defined in Section 8. One of those
“types” is “object”. Functions are values of the ob
Your understand in your last paragraph is correct.
In general, the term "type" used in the specification is referring to the
categorization of values defined in Section 8. One of those "types" is
"object". Functions are values of the object type. The section 5.2 definition
of Type(x) is corre
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>> The utility of mutable name for anonymous functions is not at issue if
>> we do not define name at all on such functions -- this is the proposal
>> Allen and I were converging on. You can set name on such anonymous,
>> expressed functions to whate
Juriy Zaytsev wrote:
> When implementing ES3.1 `Object.keys` in ES3, one of the steps in
> algorithm of `Object.keys` seemed a bit confusing:
>
> ...
> 1. If the Type(O) is not Object, throw a TypeError exception.
> ...
>
> Based on my understanding, I implemented this check as:
>
> function isP
Brendan Eich wrote:
> The utility of mutable name for anonymous functions is not at issue if
> we do not define name at all on such functions -- this is the proposal
> Allen and I were converging on. You can set name on such anonymous,
> expressed functions to whatever value you like, delete it, sh
8 matches
Mail list logo
