On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:55 PM, François REMY
wrote:
>> In browsers, when logging an object, you can actually click on an arrow
>> to browse through all its properties.
>> Serializing the whole thing on every single console.log, when those
>> happen in a loop,
>> would make the debugging experien
> The script engine does not relate to clicking on things -- that
> happens in a browser. So do you feel that script engines must ship
> with a console? Or does that apply to web browsers? And if so, why?
As Brian said, the UI itself should not be defined in the spec. However, I feel
like the obj
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM, François REMY <
francois.remy@outlook.com> wrote:
> > In browsers, when logging an object, you can actually click on an arrow
> > to browse through all its properties.
> > Serializing the whole thing on every single console.log, when those
> > happen in a loop,
> In browsers, when logging an object, you can actually click on an arrow
> to browse through all its properties.
> Serializing the whole thing on every single console.log, when those
> happen in a loop,
> would make the debugging experience a nightmare, performance-wise.
True but we may expect th
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> On 26/02/2013 23:06 , Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> 1. Does anyone else feel like we _should_ have a standard
>
>
> I think that this thread has shown that there are interoperability issues.
> Given that this is a debugging tool, you really want
Berjon
Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Standardizing console APIs: Where?
To: Brian Kardell
Cc: "public-script-co...@w3.org"
On 26/02/2013 23:06 , Brian Kardell wrote:
> 1. Does anyone else feel like we _should_ have a standard
>
I think that this thread has
I maybe missing what you're saying. But I went to the link you supplied
and that is for the Command Line API. Further it seems to be specific to
Firebug (which doesn't IMO sound like a place to hang a standard like
this). I did however find
https://getfirebug.com/wiki/index.php/Console_API to which
I must admit i am a bit surprised that anyone would appear to be opposed to
formalizing something through one of the two groups... It seems to me the
goal of all of these other groups here is to pick up something that is
lacking and people wish that we had a standard for.
Regardless of history or
On Monday, 25 February 2013 at 10:50, Thaddee Tyl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Rick Waldron (mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Brian Kardell > (mailto:bkard...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > >
> > > Recently I read a post about Chrome adding
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> Recently I read a post about Chrome adding a console.table API which
>> mentioned some things in other browsers. My immediate reaction was "is this
>> a new proposal for addition t
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> Recently I read a post about Chrome adding a console.table API which
> mentioned some things in other browsers. My immediate reaction was "is
> this a new proposal for addition to console standard API, because that
> could be pretty handy
Recently I read a post about Chrome adding a console.table API which
mentioned some things in other browsers. My immediate reaction was "is
this a new proposal for addition to console standard API, because that
could be pretty handy actually" but then after a moments pause and about an
hour search
12 matches
Mail list logo
