Its the isArray() function thing again

[Richard Cornford]

Re: Its the isArray() function thing again

dhtml wrote:
<snip>

Object.clone is proposed for ES 3.1. I did mention it on the
list, but Allen was replying to a lot of responders, so he
probably missed what I wrote:
>
>| It seems like Object.clone might create compatibility with
>| existing code. There is already a widespread use of an
>| Object.clone on the web.

Assuming you mean "incompatibilit y" where you wrote "compatibility" ,
then ES 3.1 defining an - Object.clone - method is not an issue unless
it is defined as a read-only (or ES 3.1's equivalent of read-only). If a
script loads in into (and is executed in) an ES 3.1 environment and that
script assignees its own method to - Obejct.clone - then so long as that
assignment succeeds code in the same context that uses - Object.clone -
will be using the version it is expecting to use.

Richard.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: Its the isArray() function thing again

Jorge wrote:

On Jul 27, 11:53 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:

>>Allen Wirfs-Brock,http://preview.tinyurl.com/5hf4na

>>
>There is little point in posting tinyurl URLs as nobody
>in their right mind would follow one, just as nobody in
>their right mind would follow a URL found in a spam post.

>
Not even if it points to a preview, like that one ?

How would it be possible to determine what it points to without
following it?

We Mac users aren't so frightened of urls.

It is probably best if I don't comment on that.

Richard.

[Jorge]

Re: Its the isArray() function thing again

On Jul 28, 12:26 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
It is probably best if I don't comment on that.
>

Thanks. I also know about *that* contest.

--Jorge.

[dhtml]

Re: Its the isArray() function thing again

On Jul 27, 3:22 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

dhtml wrote:

>

|  It seems like Object.clone might create compatibility with
|  existing code. There is already a widespread use of an
|  Object.clone on the web.

>
Assuming you mean "incompatibilit y" where you wrote "compatibility" ,

I remember thinking "compatibil ity issue" when I was typing.

then ES 3.1 defining an - Object.clone - method is not an issue unless
it is defined as a read-only (or ES 3.1's equivalent of read-only). If a
script loads in into (and is executed in) an ES 3.1 environment and that
script assignees its own method to - Obejct.clone - then so long as that
assignment succeeds code in the same context that uses - Object.clone -
will be using the version it is expecting to use.
>

Where "it" is the PrototypeJS library itself.

A user of PrototypeJS would have to contend with things like:

<script>
Object.clone( o };
</script>

<script src="prototype-1.7.js"></script>

<script>
Object.clone( o };
</script>

PrototypeJS.clo neObject would be safer.

Garrett

Richard.