- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 18:07:03 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On 9/3/12, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 9/3/12 8:34 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: >> What happens when the little 'compatibility view' icon, conveniently >> located next to the 'reload' button, is clicked? What does IE8 do? > > I don't know, but how common are web pages that work in IE8 but not in > any other browser? > A pointless question having nothing to do with the point you're missing? (for amnesiacs/those new to this thread: obj.var will throw an error in some implementations. obj.cssVar won't). >>> It's a definition of what "delete el.style.var.foo" does (though it can >>> also affect other things, like attempts to use Array.prototype.shift on >>> the object in some cases). You can see the spec at >>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#delete >> >> At a glance, it looks like it results in a boolean value > > That's because the caller in the ES spec (which I pointed you to) > expects a boolean return value. Note that the return value of > [[Delete]] is not the same thing as the return value of the delete > operator. > Delete operator doesn't technically 'return' anything. But the resulting of the `delete` operator is and has been what? (for the past 13 years). >>> I'm not sure why you're so incredulous about "attempt to redefine the >>> delete operator", by the way, given that Harmony proxies have a delete >>> trap that's designed to allow proxy implementors to do precisely that. >>> >> Redefining the result of the `delete` operator, as it has been for the >> last 13+ years, in CSSOM vars > > No, it's "redefined" in ECMAScript. Or more precisely, ECMAScript > provides extension points for redefining it as needed. See ECMA-357 > sections 9.1.1.3 and 9.2.1.3 for other specifications making use of > these extension points. > I'll pass. > Also note that even in ES-262 the delete operator does different things > on different objects. For example, see the custom [[Delete]] that > arguments objects have in ECMA-262 section 10.6 (sorry, no subsection > number for the relevant part of the spec because it's all flat in 10.6; > you'll just have to search for "[[Delete]] internal method of an > arguments object". > That what, it's got a [[DontDelete]], redefined [[Configurable]]. > So I think your claim about "as it has been for the last 13+ years" is > just wrong: the delete operator has done different things on different > kinds of objects for a while already. > >> so that it can result in a string value? > > I have no idea what you're talking about here. > It's only two messages up, IIRC. Try reading the quote from the spec. I'm not re-quoting it for you again :-(. >> Nevermind. > > Willingly, as long as you stop making factually incorrect statements. ;) > Now that's ironic! -- Garrett Twitter: @xkit personx.tumblr.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 01:07:32 UTC