> 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