On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Garrett, > I apologize. > I was not ignoring you. Yes, I am interested in feedback! > > The initial Array generics proposal did not include the thisObj param as it > was felt that it could open the door to some security issues. We were even > contemplating cutting Array generics from ES3.1 altogether. Later, based on > feedback from many of us on the discuss lists, we are going back to > specifying the Array Generics to include the "thisObj" param; these generics > will be available on Array.prototype. I am currently revising the proposal, > and it will include the following: > Array.prototype.indexOf > Array.prototype.lastIndexOf > Array.prototype.every > Array.prototype.some > Array.prototype.forEach > Array.prototype.map > Array.prototype.filter > > and also, > Array.prototype.reduce > Array.prototype.reduceRight >
I meant the top-level generics: Array.forEach(arrayLike, fn); It was not my argument for: Array.prototype.forEach(fn[, thisArg]); The thisArg was what Erik had brought up. The other question was regarding the: "If Type(callbackfn) is not a function, throw a TypeError exception." ES 3.0 doesn't define "Function" as a Type. In fact, the spec often uses: If "x is a Function". There is: "if Type(x) is Number", but not "if Type(x) is Function". That is why I asked if ES 3.1 defines Function for Type(). Does it? ES 3.1: Type, section 8 http://bclary.com/2004/11/07/#a-8 If ES 3.0 had forEach, it would probably have read something along the lines of one of: 1) If callbackfn does not implement [[Call]], throw a TypeError. 2) If callbackfn is not a function, throw a TypeError. > I am not sure how you got unsubscribed; there must be some mistake! > I don't know either. Garrett > pratap > [snip] _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
