[Prototype-core] Re: SV: [Prototype-core] Re: Prototype and JavaScript 1.6 Array methods

On 7/17/07, Tobias Haagen Michaelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And if you really think that you do need the functionality that > $break brings, it is trivial to implement for that one case. > I agree here personally. I had a wild idea to suggest dropping it in favor of something like: ar

[Prototype-core] SV: [Prototype-core] Re: Prototype and JavaScript 1.6 Array methods

Fra: prototype-core@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Mislav Marohnic Sendt: 10. juli 2007 12:38 On 7/10/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Your post just triggered a commit (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ changese

[Prototype-core] Re: Prototype and JavaScript 1.6 Array methods

Fantastic. I know breaking backward compatibility is never a good thing, but I'm glad to hear that standards compliance is considered just as important. On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:38 AM, Mislav Marohnić wrote: > On 7/10/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your post just triggered a co

[Prototype-core] Re: Prototype and JavaScript 1.6 Array methods

On 7/10/07, Tobie Langel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Your post just triggered a commit (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ > changeset/7170). > > Check SVN for the latest implementation. Jeff, keep in mind that even this latest change still clobbers some native methods. This is because the native o

[Prototype-core] Re: Prototype and JavaScript 1.6 Array methods

Hi Jeff, That was in the works for a while. Your post just triggered a commit (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ changeset/7170). Check SVN for the latest implementation. Hope this helps, Tobie On Jul 9, 3:04 pm, Jeff Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy, I'm investigating switching the onli