On Mar 10, 11:30 am, Jim Higson wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 March 2009 14:06:17 kangax wrote:
[...]
> > Writing `hasOwnProperty.call(object, property)` is a bit tedious. Why
> > not just encapsulate the `call`?
>
> Ah, yes, I imagined we'd be adding hasOwnProperty to Object.prototype to make
> the bad
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 14:06:17 kangax wrote:
> > > > > It's possible that we'll introduce a custom `hasOwnProperty` in
> > > > > later revisions.
> > > >
> > > > Makes sense.
> > > > if( !hasOwnProperty )
> > > > hasOwnProperty = function hasOwnProperty(){ ... };
> > >
> > > I was thinking
On 10 Mar, 07:25, Jim Higson wrote:
> On Monday 09 March 2009 21:51:05 kangax wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > It's possible that we'll introduce a custom `hasOwnProperty` in later
> > > > revisions.
>
> > > Makes sense.
> > > if( !hasOwnProperty )
> > > hasOwnProperty = function hasOwnProperty(){ ... };
On Monday 09 March 2009 21:51:05 kangax wrote:
> > > It's possible that we'll introduce a custom `hasOwnProperty` in later
> > > revisions.
> >
> > Makes sense.
> > if( !hasOwnProperty )
> > hasOwnProperty = function hasOwnProperty(){ ... };
>
> I was thinking of something like:
>
> var hasOw
On Mar 9, 6:57 am, Jim Higson wrote:
> On Friday 06 March 2009 15:26:49 kangax wrote:
[...]
> > It's possible that we'll introduce a custom `hasOwnProperty` in later
> > revisions.
>
> Makes sense.
> if( !hasOwnProperty )
> hasOwnProperty = function hasOwnProperty(){ ... };
I was thinking of
On Friday 06 March 2009 15:26:49 kangax wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:49 am, Jim Higson wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 March 2009 23:22:26 Tobie Langel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Extending Object.prototype is regarded as a Bad Thing[1].
> >
> > Does Prototype state anywhere that it doesn't work if Object.pro
On Mar 6, 5:49 am, Jim Higson wrote:
> On Thursday 05 March 2009 23:22:26 Tobie Langel wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Extending Object.prototype is regarded as a Bad Thing[1].
>
> Does Prototype state anywhere that it doesn't work if Object.prototype is
> extended? If this is a stated limitation then fai
On Thursday 05 March 2009 23:22:26 Tobie Langel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Extending Object.prototype is regarded as a Bad Thing[1].
Does Prototype state anywhere that it doesn't work if Object.prototype is
extended? If this is a stated limitation then fair enough I guess.
It seems like some parts of Pro
Hi,
Extending Object.prototype is regarded as a Bad Thing[1].
The main reason being that cross-browser support for hasOwnProperty is
fairly recent (Safari 2 doesn't have it for example).
Best,
Tobie
[1] http://erik.eae.net/archives/2005/06/06/22.13.54/
On Mar 5, 6:34 pm, Jim Higson wrote:
>
On Thursday 05 March 2009 16:16:05 Jim Higson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is anybody else finding this? Does Prototype from git work with FF3.1?
On closer inspection, it is quite easy to get Prototype to throw similar
errors even in FF3. It just happens that my present code only provokes it in
3.1.
For e
10 matches
Mail list logo
