> To clarify, the expected results here are: > > Non-strict > Typeof this inside a function when called on a number: object > Typeof this inside an Object.prototype getter when used on a number: object > > Strict > Typeof this inside a function when called on a number: number > Typeof this inside an Object.prototype getter when used on a number: number > > right?
Yes. > There’s over a hundred test cases that have already been created, and will be > contributed ‘soon’ to cover https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180. > One such test case is: > function foo() > { > 'use strict'; > return typeof(this); > } > function bar() > { > return typeof(this); > } > return foo.call(1) === 'number' && bar.call(1) === 'object'; Chrome fails this one with `bar.call(1)==='number'`, but everyone else passes. > Another that seem relevant here is: > function testcase() { > var o = {}; > Object.defineProperty(o, "foo", { get: function() { "use strict"; return > this; } }); > return o.foo===o; > } This is irrelevant because it is not testing primitives and boxing. (More formally, it is not testing the relevant part of 10.4.3 that we are discussing.) > On that note, is there anything that’s particularly interesting spec-wise in > defining foo on Object.prototype instead of a generic object and validating > there? It's relevant because it allows use on numbers, i.e. `(0).getMe`. The same results happen if you define on `Number.prototype`. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
