Re: .entries() vs. the web

https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/475089406957604864 Take care On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Alex Russell wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < > andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> FWIW I think this is a non issue and "how many" should not be relevant.

Re: .entries() vs. the web

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW I think this is a non issue and "how many" should not be relevant. > > If developers understand the issue, the fix is straight forward. > I wish to live in your world of unicorns and magic for in that

Re: .entries() vs. the web

FWIW I think this is a non issue and "how many" should not be relevant. If developers understand the issue, the fix is straight forward. instead of doing this ```javascript if (obj.entries) { // do stuff with entries } else if(Array.isArray(obj)) { // do stuff with obj } ``` or this `var e

Re: .entries() vs. the web

Right. Would love to know the size/traffic of the "number of sites" affected. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Rick Waldron wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Brendan Eich > wrote: > >> Would .items fare better, I wonder. >> > > Or outreach to sites the break? > > Rick > > >> >

Re: .entries() vs. the web

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Would .items fare better, I wonder. > Or outreach to sites the break? Rick > > /be > > Oliver Hunt wrote: > >> It turns out there are a number of sites (such as mobile.twitter.com < >> http://mobile.twitter.com>) that are property detect

Re: .entries() vs. the web

Would .items fare better, I wonder. /be Oliver Hunt wrote: It turns out there are a number of sites (such as mobile.twitter.com ) that are property detecting .entries on objects, and that means that they're breaking when Array.prototype.entries is provided. We're

Re: .entries() vs. the web

This is a gently reminder I don't represent my company anyhow in this mailing list but actually I've been working on mobile web here at twitter for 1.5 years how ... thanks for the report, I'll do what I can (already patched, waiting reviews) + I don't think mobile web should block anyhow new stand

Re: .entries() vs. the web

Apparently, this problem was already known more than 4 months ago: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=924386#c19 I guess it specifically affect the mobile web? for it didn't prevent Firefox to ship `Array.prototype.entries` in v28, released on March 18. —Claude Le 17 juin 201

Re: .entries() vs. the web

@@unscopeable doesn't work as they are not using |with| The logic is something along the lines of if (foo.entries) ... It looks like there are paths that objects or arrays may path through, with "entries" being a perfectly reasonable property name in the object case, but now the array case hi

Re: .entries() vs. the web

That is why you need to implement @unscopables too. On Jun 16, 2014 7:08 PM, "Oliver Hunt" wrote: > It turns out there are a number of sites (such as mobile.twitter.com) > that are property detecting .entries on objects, and that means that > they're breaking when Array.prototype.entries is provi

Re: .entries() vs. the web

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > It turns out there are a number of sites (such as mobile.twitter.com) that > are property detecting .entries on objects, and that means that they're > breaking when Array.prototype.entries is provided. What are they using the detection for? ~

.entries() vs. the web

It turns out there are a number of sites (such as mobile.twitter.com) that are property detecting .entries on objects, and that means that they're breaking when Array.prototype.entries is provided. We're removing it from JSC now, until we can find a way to expose it without causing site breakag