Augmenting Types
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 4 Jan 2010 17:58 On Jan 4, 5:51 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > And I think it bears pointing out that there is no recovery from > > [an "automation server can't create object ..."] exception. > > Wrong, try-catch can handle this. > You misquoted me. (!) Are you kidding? You know exactly what I was referring to (if not, see screen shot). Obviously the error was _not_ caught by try-catch, therefore there is no possible recovery (regardless of the wording of the dialog in the screen shot). Clear?
From: David Mark on 4 Jan 2010 18:02 On Jan 4, 3:36 am, Eric Bednarz <bedn...(a)fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote: > David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Jan 3, 1:50 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > >> authors know about .hasOwnProperty() existence and purpose ? > > > You truly are a student of Crockford. For about the millionth time, > > that method doesn't work in "ancient" browsers like Safari 2. > > It works in Safari 2.04; I would expect that people who are stuck with > OS X 10.4 would still run system updates. So say it was 2.01 (or whatever). It's irrelevant as Safari 2 is not the only browser without that method. > > > I see > > it used without proper feature detection > > Booo! :-) Huh? Using it without detecting it means the script blows up, possibly leaving the document in an unusable state. Scripts are not allowed to die without permission. That's always been the point (and it's a good one). ;)
From: David Mark on 4 Jan 2010 17:56 On Jan 4, 5:51 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > And I think it bears pointing out that there is no recovery from > > [an "automation server can't create object ..."] exception. > > Wrong, try-catch can handle this. > You misquoted me. (!) Are you kidding? You know exactly what I was referring to (if not, see screen shot). Obviously the error was _not_ caught by try-catch, therefore there is no possible recovery (regardless of the wording of the dialog in the screen shot). Clear?
From: Eric Bednarz on 4 Jan 2010 19:16 Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen(a)gmail.com> writes: > Eric Bednarz wrote: [.hasOwnProperty() in Safari 2] >> It works in Safari 2.04; I would expect that people who are stuck with >> OS X 10.4 would still run system updates. > > Ah but 10.4 can get Safari 3 and 4. 10.3 users are a different matter. My mistake, thanks for the correction. > Apple bundles the Browser with the operating system, but somehow does > not suffer the legal troubles that Microsoft has experienced in doing > the same. Apple does a lot worse things and gets away with those, too. Compared to Adobe, Apple is a socialistic summer camp. > Apple a good example what is wrong with business in America. Business in America suffers from faulty ECMAScript implementations?
From: Eric Bednarz on 4 Jan 2010 19:32
David Mark <dmark.cinsoft(a)gmail.com> writes: > Eric Bednarz wrote: >> David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> writes: >>> that method [hasOwnProperty] doesn't work in "ancient" browsers like >>> Safari 2. >> >> It works in Safari 2.04; […] > > So say it was 2.01 (or whatever). It's irrelevant as Safari 2 is not > the only browser without that method. I know, but it is not my fault that you picked a bad example ;-) >>> I see >>> it used without proper feature detection >> >> Booo! :-) > > Huh? It was more of a general 'no kidding'-booo. > Using it without detecting it means the script blows up, > possibly leaving the document in an unusable state. Sure, but there are worse things around that blow up scripts in much more common setups. Well, I don't need to tell you that. |