Do not assign undefined to window event handlers in IE/MSHTML
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: using screenX and screenY?
Next: ECMA-262-5 in detail. Chapter 1. Properties and Property Descriptors.
From: Garrett Smith on 30 Apr 2010 17:58 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: [...] > initial value must be used there). Modification may be performed both by a > conforming implementation or the user (for whatever reason). > That does not support the argument that using Function.prototype is not safe. An implementation may add additional properties to Function.prototype, such as Function.prototype.prototype, and be conformant. However, a conforming implementation must also provide all built-in functions. Function.prototype is a built-in function. As such, a conforming implementation must provide that, as specified. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 30 Apr 2010 18:25 Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: > > [...] You have trimmed the important part again. >> initial value must be used there). Modification may be performed both by >> a conforming implementation or the user (for whatever reason). >> > > That does not support the argument that using Function.prototype is not > safe. [...] A property that has a value that can be overwritten (maybe accidentally or by non-conformance, who knows), one that may assume different values depending on the implementation, is by definition not safe to use. And what about the developer? Do you not think that a empty anonymous function expression is going to be a lot more self-descriptive than `Function.prototype'? PointedEars -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk>
From: Garrett Smith on 30 Apr 2010 18:51 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >> [...] > > You have trimmed the important part again. > >>> initial value must be used there). Modification may be performed both by >>> a conforming implementation or the user (for whatever reason). >>> >> That does not support the argument that using Function.prototype is not >> safe. [...] > > A property that has a value that can be overwritten (maybe accidentally or > by non-conformance, who knows), one that may assume different values > depending on the implementation, is by definition not safe to use. > What is written is too far from broken English be clearly understood. > And what about the developer? Do you not think that a empty anonymous > function expression is going to be a lot more self-descriptive than > `Function.prototype'? > What is this? A different argument? Switching the reason for why it is bad to use Function.prototype? New reason is something as subjective and trivial. Function.prototype can be easily understood as being a function that accepts any number of arguments and returns undefined. That is a fact. As to what is more descriptive: That, or an anonymous function expression, I have no comment. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 30 Apr 2010 19:25 Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: >>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >>> [...] >> >> You have trimmed the important part again. >> >>>> initial value must be used there). Modification may be performed both >>>> by a conforming implementation or the user (for whatever reason). >>>> >>> That does not support the argument that using Function.prototype is not >>> safe. [...] >> >> A property that has a value that can be overwritten (maybe accidentally >> or by non-conformance, who knows), one that may assume different values >> depending on the implementation, is by definition not safe to use. > > What is written is too far from broken English be clearly understood. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You should leave the judgement to people who can actually write proper (and meaningful) English. >> And what about the developer? Do you not think that a empty anonymous >> function expression is going to be a lot more self-descriptive than >> `Function.prototype'? > > What is this? A different argument? Switching the reason for why it is bad > to use Function.prototype? No, learn to read. PointedEars -- Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.) -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
From: Garrett Smith on 30 Apr 2010 19:40
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Garrett Smith wrote: >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: >>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >>>> [...] >>> You have trimmed the important part again. >>> >>>>> initial value must be used there). Modification may be performed both >>>>> by a conforming implementation or the user (for whatever reason). >>>>> >>>> That does not support the argument that using Function.prototype is not >>>> safe. [...] >>> A property that has a value that can be overwritten (maybe accidentally >>> or by non-conformance, who knows), one that may assume different values >>> depending on the implementation, is by definition not safe to use. >> What is written is too far from broken English be clearly understood. Still stands. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You should leave the judgement to people who can actually write proper > (and meaningful) English. > If you cannot write understandably, then you will be left having an unintelligible conversation with only yourself. >>> And what about the developer? Do you not think that a empty anonymous >>> function expression is going to be a lot more self-descriptive than >>> `Function.prototype'? >> What is this? A different argument? Switching the reason for why it is bad >> to use Function.prototype? > > No, learn to read. I read a sentence containing a suggestion worded in the form of a negative question. Cryptically Pointless, and a Pointlessly question as well, but I answered the question anyway. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |