On 7/31/14, 1:53 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
If I understand correctly, the form DOM element's named input properties
'shadow' the actual JS properties defined on the DOM object.
That certainly seems to be what some UAs do, yes.
This seems bad. I'm not a DOM expert, but is it essential that
Hi everybody,
I was reading the doc for the new Set method and something suprised me :
Why Set uses the size method instead of the length property ?
--
Maxime WARNIER
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Le 31/07/2014 09:25, Maxime Warnier a écrit :
Hi everybody,
I was reading the doc for the new Set method and something suprised me :
Why Set uses the size method instead of the length property ?
IIRC and with my own words length refers more to something that can be
measured contiguously (like
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Requiring a single namespace, such that adding an input and then removing it
would make a previous property with the same name as the input go away,
would actually be fairly annoying performance-wise, I suspect.
Really?
This was intentional
Allen
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:24 AM, Nathan Wall ww...@google.com wrote:
Also, whether this was intentional or not, I think it's nice for objects with
`length` properties to all have properties at indices from `0` to `length`
(so they work in the `Array.prototype`
2014-07-31 15:43 GMT+02:00 Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com:
Right Thing: I think [[PreventExtensions]] on these objects should
always return false. I think [[DefineProperty]] on these objects
should return false if Desc.[[Configurable]] is false or if it's
missing and would default
2014-07-31 15:26 GMT+02:00 Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com:
There's not a rule that says flat-out, If Desc.[[Configurable]] is
false and [[DefineOwnProperty]](P, Desc) returns true, that counts as
'observing' the property P as a non-configurable property on the
target. but if you
On 7/31/14, 9:43 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Requiring a single namespace, such that adding an input and then removing it
would make a previous property with the same name as the input go away,
would actually be fairly
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 7/31/14, 9:43 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
Right Thing: I think [[PreventExtensions]] on these objects should
always return false.
The Web IDL spec requires this already, fwiw: [...]
If there is an actual hook it can
On 7/31/14, 2:47 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
Please pass along to the WebIDL editor(s) that this can be done
by specifying that [[PreventExtensions]] returns false.
Excellent. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26490
If location is exempt from shadowing, then it can be exempt
I was looking at the number of complaints about the Math object, especially
regarding the lack of required precision (refer to the thread Re: ES6
accuracy of special functions for a lengthy discussion on this). Because
of this, I propose that a new object, StrictMath, should be added. This
would
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
I was looking at the number of complaints about the Math object,
especially regarding the lack of required precision (refer to the thread Re:
ES6 accuracy of special functions for a lengthy discussion on this).
Because
12 matches
Mail list logo
