just my 0.02,
setter, considered inline, are more like:
```javascript
return doSomethingWith(name, value), value;
```
than
```javascript
var result = doSomethingWith(name, value);
return result === undefined ? value : result;
```
also because returning `undefined`, as setting `undefined`, wou
On 2/18/14 1:07 PM, David Bruant wrote:
In practice, the returned value of setting is the value on the rhs of
the =.
That's the value of an assignment expression, yes.
var o = {set b(v){return 12;}} // this return statement is useless
Unless you explicitly getOwnPropertyDescriptor("o",
David Bruant wrote:
In practice, the returned value of setting is the value on the rhs of
the =.
var o = {set b(v){return 12;}} // this return statement is useless
console.log(o.a = 13); // 13
console.log(o.b = 14); // 14
It might be useful to return a different value on setting.
On Feb 18, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2511
>
> We now have our first setter in the spec. However, it is speced to return the
> value itself. This is pretty inconsistent with WebIDL and the common practice
> to not include a return valu
Le 18/02/2014 18:55, Erik Arvidsson a écrit :
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2511
We now have our first setter in the spec. However, it is speced to
return the value itself. This is pretty inconsistent with WebIDL and
the common practice to not include a return value in setters in
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2511
We now have our first setter in the spec. However, it is speced to return
the value itself. This is pretty inconsistent with WebIDL and the common
practice to not include a return value in setters in object literals.
Can we get the spec changed to
6 matches
Mail list logo
