Math ugliness.
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 17 Feb 2010 06:37 Stefan Weiss wrote: > On 17/02/10 11:52, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > [snip impressive human-script-engine-mode text] Thanks :) Some day soon I hope I can have *computed* what should happen according to the Specification for any given input or at least any given expression instead. >> I have also learned in the process that the more complex algorithms of >> ES5 do have a purpose beyond simply much a greater abstraction level; >> for example, they support the implementation of mutable property >> attributes like [[Enumerable]] -- which finally would allow such nice >> features like >> >> var o = {foo: "bar"}; >> >> /* shows "foo" */ >> for (var p in o) console.log(p); >> >> Object.defineProperty(o, "bar", {enumerable: false}); ^^^^^ >> /* shows nothing */ >> for (p in o) console.log(p); > > Shouldn't this still show "foo"? It should, thanks. I meant to pass "foo", of course. 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: Jake Jarvis on 17 Feb 2010 06:57 On 17.02.2010 09:36, wrote Jorge: > On Feb 17, 6:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> > wrote: >> >> (...) In fact, this idea is anything but original. (...) > > And then came Pointy, decided to spoil the fun... :-) > > I've never seen it before.. who, where, when ? Have you got any urls, > plz ? > -- > Jorge. http://www.prototypejs.org -- Jake Jarvis
From: Richard Cornford on 17 Feb 2010 07:00 On Feb 17, 9:39 am, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 10:33 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > - implies two numeric primitive to Number object type-conversations > > One sometimes has to wonder what's really going on inside one's > browser... "primitive" "conversations" ? LOL. OK, "conversations" should have been "conversions" (automatic spelling correction, which I usually have turned off because it is not very good at guessing which words are likely to occur in the subjects I write about). Richard.
From: Richard Cornford on 17 Feb 2010 07:22 On Feb 17, 11:12 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: <snip> > ... , my research¹ proves that you are correct for ES3(F), > where the Reference value is computed using the conversion > result as base; not so in ES5 (I wonder what the rationale > was). You mean the rationale for designing a new language version specification that is significantly incompatible with the (very long established) preceding version (and so is going to give many people headaches in the near future as ES 5 implementations replace ES 3 implementations in web browsers)? As I recall from the discussions on the ES mailing lists there wasn't much of a rationale, just vague talk of things like "security" and a few outspoken supporters of the notion. You may recall that Google Chrome had been observed to be getting this aspect of ES3 wrong (with regard to String object methods in those cases) long before there was an ES5 (or this change had been proposed), so for at least one of the participants in the ECMA committee getting the change passed meant not having to fix what had previously been a faulty script engine. Richard.
From: Jorge on 17 Feb 2010 07:49
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, Jake Jarvis <pig_in_sh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > http://www.prototypejs.org Ah, well, some augmentation, yes, but not all the Math methods... : http://www.prototypejs.org/api/number -- Jorge. |