> It's not that it's imperfect. It's that it's useless in the real world.
It's clear it's useless to you. It's not clear that it's useless to everyone.
In fact, I for one definitely find it useful. No sense in continuing to argue
over subjective opinion.
> We can already do shallow testing of APIs. Reflect.support doesn't help
> there, and in some ways (that I've outlined before) it is a regression.
>
> ```
> if (!Array.prototype.includes) { ... }
> if (!Reflect.supports("Array.prototype.includes")) { ... }
> ```
As I've repeatedly said, this proposed feature is not for those sorts of tests.
It's for all the syntax tests that require `try..catch` + `Function` / `eval`.
Please (re)read the rest of the thread.
> You also wouldn't do testing of syntax support at runtime
I already do. I fully intend to keep doing so.
> as you would effectively be duplicating the code.
Nope, not duplicating code. Maintaining code in original ES6+ authored form as
well as transpiled form. They're both files that can be loaded by a browser. So
my intent is to decide at runtime which one is appropriate, and only load one
or the other.
> ...send down a file that tests for support and then sends it back to the
> server
Yep, absolutely. Bootstrapping.
> and then build the appropriate assets for that browser?
Of course not. It picks one of two already existing files.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
