Augmenting Types
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 4 Jan 2010 19:40 On Jan 4, 7:32 pm, Eric Bednarz <bedn...(a)fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote: > David Mark <dmark.cins...(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 don't think it was a bad example. I contend that some revision of Safari 2 is lacking that method (though it remains to be seen which one). > >>> I see > >>> it used without proper feature detection > > >> Booo! :-) > > > Huh? > > It was more of a general no kidding-booo. Oh. > > > 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 dont need to tell you that. :)
From: Garrett Smith on 4 Jan 2010 20:55 Eric Bednarz wrote: > 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. > Well I don't know much about Adobe. >> Apple a good example what is wrong with business in America. > > Business in America suffers from faulty ECMAScript implementations? No, business in America is driven by marketing and facilitated by laywers. Apple lies to the consumers about the technology. Makes an web-incompatible browser, patents the incompatibility, prevents other browser competition on iPhone. The word "advertisement" comes from latin. The root word "advertise" means "turn toward". -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: kangax on 4 Jan 2010 22:10 On 1/4/10 7:40 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Jan 4, 7:32 pm, Eric Bednarz<bedn...(a)fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote: >> David Mark<dmark.cins...(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 don't think it was a bad example. I contend that some revision of > Safari 2 is lacking that method (though it remains to be seen which > one). Safari 2.0 and lower (such as 1.3.2 � latest from 1.x series) lacks `hasOwnProperty`. Next version � 2.0.2 already has it, so do 2.0.3 and last from 2.x series � 2.0.4. IIRC, IE introduced `hasOwnProperty` starting with 5.5, so 5.0 and lower don't have it. Early versions of Konqueror might lack it too, I don't know. And of course mobile non-modern browsers usually have poor support, so it could be missing there as well. [...] -- kangax
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 4 Jan 2010 23:17 David Mark wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 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. (!) Apparently, out of misunderstanding what you were referring to. > Are you kidding? No. > You know exactly what I was referring to Apparently I did not know it. > (if not, see screen shot). ACK > Obviously the error was _not_ caught by try-catch, I have not seen the source code leading to this error message yet, so I cannot tell whether try-catch would help there. I wonder how you could. > therefore there is no possible recovery (regardless of the wording > of the dialog in the screen shot). Clear? No, non sequitur until now. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: David Mark on 4 Jan 2010 23:28
On Jan 4, 11:17 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 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. (!) > > Apparently, out of misunderstanding what you were referring to. Yes, I was a little vague. The whole point was that there was no try- catch. That's why jQuery drops dead in a lot of corporate environments. > > > Are you kidding? > > No. > > > You know exactly what I was referring to > > Apparently I did not know it. > > > (if not, see screen shot). > > ACK > > > Obviously the error was _not_ caught by try-catch, > > I have not seen the source code leading to this error message yet, so I > cannot tell whether try-catch would help there. I wonder how you could.. Huh? If there was a try-catch (as there always should have been in jQuery), there would be no exception, no dialog, etc. Kangax had mentioned about the _wording_ of the dialog, which seems to indicate that the application (or enhancement) can recover from the exception (by allowing IE to run other scripts on the page). |