Implicit object constructor misinterpretation
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Are arguments that are objects passed by reference?
Next: FAQ Topic - How do I access a frame's content? (2009-10-25)
From: VK on 24 Oct 2009 15:10 Richard Cornford wrote: > I find it humorous that your profile in Google groups quotes Ockham's > Raiser in Latin, as I cannot think of any better demonstration of > spectacularly missing the point. Here we have a case where the simpler > explanation certainly is the better explanation. "Effective Monday Nov.26 ... all object key strings to be placed in single quotes with internal single quotes escaped ... [the punishment stuff is irrelevant]" Now compare this and the full production description with possible branching from your post. This is exactly what Occam's Raiser is about, in my humble interpretation of course ;) For the Fx (ab)normality I am going to ask out of curiosity at mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 24 Oct 2009 14:58 VK wrote: > Richard Cornford wrote: >> I find it humorous that your profile in Google groups quotes Ockham's >> Raiser in Latin, as I cannot think of any better demonstration of >> spectacularly missing the point. Here we have a case where the simpler >> explanation certainly is the better explanation. > > "Effective Monday Nov.26 ... all object key strings to be placed in > single quotes with internal single quotes escaped ... [the punishment > stuff is irrelevant]" OMG. > Now compare this and the full production description with possible > branching from your post. This is exactly what Occam's Raiser is > about, in my humble interpretation of course ;) The correct spellings for that methodological principle include "Occam's razor" and "Ockham's razor" (after William of Ockham [1285/8-1348/9 CE], English philosopher). > For the Fx (ab)normality I am going to ask out of curiosity at > mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine I pity them already. 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: Richard Cornford on 24 Oct 2009 15:22 VK wrote: > Richard Cornford wrote: >> I find it humorous that your profile in Google groups quotes >> Ockham's Raiser in Latin, as I cannot think of any better >> demonstration of spectacularly missing the point. Here we >> have a case where the simpler explanation certainly is the >> better explanation. > > "Effective Monday Nov.26 ... November the 26th is not a Monday. > all object key strings to be placed in > single quotes with internal single quotes escaped ... > [the punishment stuff is irrelevant]" > > Now compare this and the full production description with > possible branching from your post. This is exactly what > Occam's Raiser is about, in my humble interpretation of > course ;) No, that is arbitrary rules on top of syntax rules. The key/reserved word rule issue applies to all instances of Identifier use; function, variable and parameter names, dot notation property accessors, object literal names, etc. If the person doing the programming understands the syntax rules then they don't need the addition rules, and if they don't understand the syntax rules then the additional rules will not render their output error-free (even with regard to Identifier/reserved word issues). You are, as usual, attempting to solve the wrong problem. > For the Fx (ab)normality I am going to ask out of curiosity at > mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine On your record of such promises, I will not be holding my breath. Richard.
From: Richard Cornford on 24 Oct 2009 15:26 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote: > Richard Cornford wrote: > >> There is no need to propose any automatic insertion of quotes >> into the source text (or token stream) in order to account for >> the behaviour seen. And indeed such insertions would be >> contrary to the behaviour observed. For example:- >> >> var x = { >> x-y:5 >> }; >> >> - is a syntax error but:- >> >> var x = { >> 'x-y':5 >> }; >> >> - is not. The first being a mathematical expression in a context >> that only allows for Identifiers, string literals and numeric >> literals, while the second is a numeric literal. > ^^^^^^^ > Do you mean "string"? Yes I did. > As for the rest, thank you for your patient explanations. One can > only hope something of it gets through to him. Pigs may fly. ;-) Richard.
From: VK on 24 Oct 2009 16:52
VK wrote: > > Richard Cornford wrote: > > For the Fx (ab)normality I am going to ask out of curiosity at > > mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine Richard Cornford wrote: > On your record of such promises, I will not be holding my breath. http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/msg/cb7669ddd693937a |