Hi Mark,
On Nov 5, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ES3.1 is premised on accepting these dynamics, being originally
conceived as ES3 + reality.
I have heard this repeated many times. I'm not sure where
On Nov 6, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Nov 5, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ES3.1 is premised on accepting these
PROTECTED]; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Proposed change to typeof
From my point of view, I agree with Brendan, but would go one step further.
If it isn't finished (specified) by the time of the November meeting, it is
not part of ES 3.1, or conversely, the committee will make a decision
On Nov 4, 2008, at 12:11 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
The correct fix is to make RegExp objects noncallable. This matches IE
and Opera's behaviour and so will not break the web.
Careful. We can reason about breaking the web if something disagrees
with IE, but not all JS implementations
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 4, 2008, at 12:11 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
The correct fix is to make RegExp objects noncallable. This matches IE
and Opera's behaviour and so will not break the web.
Careful. We can reason about breaking the web if something disagrees
with IE, but not all
On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:42 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Of course not. In this case we were talking about a case in which IE
and Opera do not implement an extension, and follow the existing
standard
more closely in their implementations of 'typeof'.
Yes, I know, but the particular case
On Nov 5, 2008, at 5:40 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:42 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Of course not. In this case we were talking about a case in which IE
and Opera do not implement an extension, and follow the existing
standard
more closely in
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ES3.1 is premised on accepting these dynamics, being originally conceived
as ES3 + reality.
I have heard this repeated many times. I'm not sure where this comes from,
but that has never been the sole conception of
On Nov 5, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ES3.1 is premised on accepting these dynamics, being originally
conceived as ES3 + reality.
I have heard this repeated many times.
I heard it first with you and
Mark S. Miller wrote:
For Cajita, the only issue is RegExps. Host objects are such a disaster of
unspecified vagueness and random browser behavior that we never expose hosts
objects directly to cajoled code. Rather, we intermediate all access to host
objects through our taming layer. Other
On Nov 4, 2008, at 19:11 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
I suggest that, for non-host objects, we change the ES3.1 spec so
that |typeof F === 'function'| iff the [[Class]] property of F is
Function. For host objects, the spec would continue to allow them
to return whatever the func they want ;).
11 matches
Mail list logo
