Sorry for rising this subject again, but I am somewhat vexed about the
changed decision for the exception throwing when null is passed to the
for..of statement. I know, that my writing here wont change it now, but I
am a little bit uneasy about this dangerous precedent. So why it should not
throw a
On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
>> It sounds like the the tide is swinging towards bug finding rather than
>> consistency in this case. I'm fine with and and will update the spec.
>> accordingly.
>
> The conclusion here wasn't exactly clear to me. Is it the following?
>
> It sounds like the the tide is swinging towards bug finding rather than
> consistency in this case. I'm fine with and and will update the spec.
> accordingly.
The conclusion here wasn't exactly clear to me. Is it the following?
- for-in continues to do zero iterations
- for-of throws a TypeE
On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 03:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Actually, if memory serves, IE JScript tolerated null and undefined on right
>> of for-in. SpiderMonkey and my ur-JS implementation, Mocha, did not. Someone
>> with the jwz nostalgia Netscape 2/3 br
On 06/12/2014 03:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Actually, if memory serves, IE JScript tolerated null and undefined on right
> of for-in. SpiderMonkey and my ur-JS implementation, Mocha, did not. Someone
> with the jwz nostalgia Netscape 2/3 browsers, please test.
Hmm. I'm reciting tribal knowled
throw. Fast fail is better.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Jun 12, 2014, at 3:18 PM, André Bargull wrote:
> Corrected link: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2737
>
>
> On 6/13/2014 12:16 AM, André Bargull wrote:
>>> On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>>>
>>> > Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as th
Jeff Walden wrote:
On 06/12/2014 03:05 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I believe this behavior for for-in was added in ES5. My recollection was
that Doug Crockford pushed for it. I don't recall if it was because it matched
web reality or simply because he thought it was a good idea.
It was
Corrected link: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2737
On 6/13/2014 12:16 AM, André Bargull wrote:
On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>/ Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
value in for-of loops.
/>/
/>/ The following test pas
On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>/ Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
value in for-of loops.
/>/
/>/ The following test passes using the spec algorithms:
/>/
/>/ var c = 0;
/>/ for (var x of null) {
/>/c++;
/>/ }
/>/ assert.
On 06/12/2014 03:05 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I believe this behavior for for-in was added in ES5. My recollection was
> that Doug Crockford pushed for it. I don't recall if it was because it
> matched web reality or simply because he thought it was a good idea.
It was added for web comp
On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
> value in for-of loops.
>
> The following test passes using the spec algorithms:
>
> var c = 0;
> for (var x of null) {
> c++;
> }
> assert.equal(c, 0);
>
> However
Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable
value in for-of loops.
The following test passes using the spec algorithms:
var c = 0;
for (var x of null) {
c++;
}
assert.equal(c, 0);
However, if we get a null value here we are most likely just masking an
user bug.
I
13 matches
Mail list logo
