Augmenting Types
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 4 Jan 2010 23:30 Garrett Smith wrote: > Eric Bednarz wrote: >> David Mark <dmark.cinsoft(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. > > Ah but 10.4 can get Safari 3 and 4. 10.3 users are a different matter. > > Now for 10.3, you'd need to support Safari 1. I do know any way to test > Safari 1 on 10.4. That is, you do _not_ know any? Anyhow, Mac OS X 10.3 users would probably prefer IE 5 for Mac or Mozilla Camino over Safari 1 these days, so I would not bother with optimizing for the latter anymore. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 4 Jan 2010 23:41 David Mark wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >> > 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. Not necessarily. It depends on the implementation and the runtime environment which errors cause error messages despite try-catch. PointedEars -- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are positively harmful for cross-browser scripting. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
From: David Mark on 4 Jan 2010 23:57 On Jan 4, 11:41 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >> > 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. > > Not necessarily. It depends on the implementation and the runtime > environment which errors cause error messages despite try-catch. > Yes, and the one in question has always been catch-able. It would be pretty ludicrous if it weren't (almost as ludicrous as not using a try- catch when instantiating an ActiveX object). ;)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 5 Jan 2010 00:12 David Mark wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >> David Mark wrote: >> >> > 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. >> Not necessarily. It depends on the implementation and the runtime >> environment which errors cause error messages despite try-catch. > > Yes, and the one in question has always been catch-able. How can you possibly know without having seen the source code? > It would be pretty ludicrous if it weren't (almost as ludicrous as not > using a try-catch when instantiating an ActiveX object). ;) So you say this exception is catchable, yet you said in <news:05599f98-4a69-49c7-9fbd-8014c0020abc(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> that "there is no recovery from such an exception." Something does not add up here. PointedEars -- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are positively harmful for cross-browser scripting. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
From: David Mark on 5 Jan 2010 00:23
On Jan 5, 12:12 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> >> David Mark wrote: > >> >> > 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. > >> Not necessarily. It depends on the implementation and the runtime > >> environment which errors cause error messages despite try-catch. > > > Yes, and the one in question has always been catch-able. > > How can you possibly know without having seen the source code? Because we are not talking about _that_ source code. We are talking about something else. The screen shot was just an example. > > > It would be pretty ludicrous if it weren't (almost as ludicrous as not > > using a try-catch when instantiating an ActiveX object). ;) > > So you say this exception is catchable, yet you said in > <news:05599f98-4a69-49c7-9fbd-8014c0020abc(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> > that "there is no recovery from such an exception." > > Something does not add up here. > An _uncaught_ exception. The message on the dialog in the screen shot was supposedly good news for "such exceptions." I was pointing out that it was not (i.e. it would not magically recover on clicking "No"). Clear now? |