On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>/ Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
value in for-of loops.
/>/
/>/ The following test passes using the spec algorithms:
/>/
/>/ var c = 0;
/>/ for (var x of null) {
/>/ c++;
/>/ }
/>/ assert.equal(c, 0);
/>/
/>/ However, if we get a null value here we are most likely just masking an user bug.
/>/
/>/ I assume the justification is that for-in allows null here? However, for-of is new syntax and we have the chance to get this right this time around.
/
Yup, there was an issue that was reported and fixed fairly recently pointing
out that for-of was inconsistent with for-in in this respect.
for-of statement iteration always ignored undefined/null (always = since
it was added in rev6). I've only requested in [1] to align for-of
iteration in statements and comprehensions to have the same behaviour
w.r.t. undefined/null.
[1] https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
