On 6/10/16 11:25 AM, Florin Mezei wrote:
Are we still concerned about compatibility issues caused by this?
Somewhat, yes. The fact the chrome just used to do [object Object]
makes me a bit less concerned, and the fact that they're shipping the
new setup also. But there are still concerns,
Are we still concerned about compatibility issues caused by this?
Regards,
Florin.
-Original Message-
From: dev-platform
[mailto:dev-platform-bounces+florin.mezei=softvisioninc...@lists.mozilla.org
] On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:30 PM
To:
On 6/3/16 11:41 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
* Chrome: has been shipping the behavior I'm proposing to change to
since Chrome 50, I believe. Current Chrome release version is 51.
One note: earlier versions of Chrome claimed [object Object] for DOM
prototypes. So the claim the Google folks are
Ok, I've filed this bug to use @@toStringTag in the debugger instead of
Debugger.Object.prototype.class:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1278310
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/6/16 12:23 PM, Nick Fitzgerald wrote:
>
>> Yes (via the
On 6/6/16 12:23 PM, Nick Fitzgerald wrote:
Yes (via the `Debugger.Object.prototype.class` getter) but unless I've
misunderstood the scope of this proposal, the class name exposed by that
getter should not change, only the `Object.prototype.toString.call(thing)`
would change.
You misunderstood
Well, the Debugger.Object.prototype.class getter shouldn't change, but
perhaps devtools shouldn't use it any more. Devtools should be displaying
objects in a way that doesn't surprise developers.
It seems to me the ideal behavior would be for Devtools to show objects in
the way that the ES6
Yes (via the `Debugger.Object.prototype.class` getter) but unless I've
misunderstood the scope of this proposal, the class name exposed by that
getter should not change, only the `Object.prototype.toString.call(thing)`
would change.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Panos Astithas
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Nick Fitzgerald
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> > Devtools bug: none so far, but maybe we need one? Does devtools rely on
> > the JSClass name or Object.prototype.toString anywhere?
> >
On 06/03/2016 06:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Summary: The current IDL spec says that Object.prototype.toString() on a DOM prototype
object for interface Foo is "[object FooPrototype]", whereas
for instances of the interface it's "[object Foo]", and that's what we
implement. However, as we try
9 matches
Mail list logo