- From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:15:41 +0000
- To: David Junger <tffy@free.fr>, Voice Public List <www-voice@w3.org>
David, On the issue of iteration order, isn't it a bit restrictive to require that all implementations use the order that their ecma interpreter chooses? I assume that most implementations will do that, but I don't see a reason to require them to. Why not say: "In cases where ECMAScript specification defines the iteration order for the object, the Processor MUST follow that ordering. (Note that for Arrays and strings, this goes from 0 to length-1.) In cases where the ECMAScript specification does not define the iteration order, the Processor MAY follow any order that it chooses." This lets platforms do the simple thing but doesn't require them to. (The reason for mentioning arrays and strings was to make it clear that 0-based indexing is required.) - Jim -----Original Message----- From: David Junger [mailto:tffy@free.fr] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:39 AM To: Voice Public List Subject: Re: updated SCXML draft Le 11 apr 2013 à 16:30, David Junger a écrit : > Bottom line, the simplest thing to say is: "behave exactly as for(item in object) if(object.hasOwnProperty(item))" Oops. Replace 'item' with 'index' up there. item=object[index] of course. David
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 15:16:06 UTC