- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:41:04 -0700
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Patrick Mueller <pmuellr at muellerware.org> wrote: > James Graham wrote: >> >> Aryeh Gregor wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Mueller >>> <pmuellr at muellerware.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is the first time I've seen the requirement for such a beast. ?You >>>> can >>>> understand the desire for it, given the context, but still. ?Does >>>> anything >>>> else in JavaScript make use of such a data structure? >>> >>> It says that JavaScript should just use Object. ?Isn't that, >>> essentially, an ordered dictionary? >> >> Yes. Indeed there are compatibility requirements for the ordering of >> ordinary user-created Object Objects in web browser implementations; the >> order of enumeration must be the same as the order of insertion of the >> properties. > > Interesting. ?I guess this is a "JavaScript in web browser implementation" > difference from the "JavaScript spec". ?Following the links in jresig's blog > post > > ? http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-in-chrome/ > > in the "for loop order" section. > > Still doesn't seem like it makes sense to go ahead and build dependencies on > this (unfortunate, IMO) behavior. As I understand it, the web already depends on this behavior. IIRC EcmaScript 3.1 is going to mandate this behavior, so it'll be specced behavior soon. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 13:41:04 UTC