Then I guess I am also looking to help educate about new platform features.
I understand this use case is much less needed, though.
☆*PhistucK*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:48 PM, PhistucK wrote:
>
>> Well, you got the wrong idea.
>> I
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:48 PM, PhistucK wrote:
> Well, you got the wrong idea.
> I am looking to help developers, not to tell them something is necessarily
> wrong.
> The expensive ones (like "includes" in obj) are not part of "best
> available" in my opinion.
>
These are the ones that cause
Well, you got the wrong idea.
I am looking to help developers, not to tell them something is necessarily
wrong.
The expensive ones (like "includes" in obj) are not part of "best
available" in my opinion.
foo = obj.includes, obj.includes() and String.prototype.includes = foo are
enough.
The point i
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Mathias Bynens
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> wrote:
>> > It sure sounds like 'contains' would be less likely to cause trouble,
>> > and is also a slightly better na
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
> wrote:
> > It sure sounds like 'contains' would be less likely to cause trouble,
> > and is also a slightly better name IMHO.
> >
> > Is Mozilla on board with renaming it? If they're n
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Mathias Bynens
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Mathias Bynens
> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Philip Jäg
Firefox simply got lucky in the case of the referenced bug, because
some web pages serve different code depending on what browser they
encounter.
On 27 November 2014 at 13:14, Mathias Bynens wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> wrote:
>>> It sure sounds like 'contains' would be less likely to cause trouble,
>>> and is also a slightly better name I
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM, PhistucK wrote:
> This is to ease debugging, not to solve every single case. As much as
> possible, log it. On a 'best available' case.
>
Logging would be prohibitively expensive as well, and lead to too many
false positives.
We will have to log, for example, ev
*exist
'contains' is the obvious choice, 'includes' is not. This is what I mean.
While 'contains' is better named, 'includes' is less risky and therefore
should be chosen.
I am finally done, I think. Sorry for the triple post.
☆*PhistucK*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:57 PM, PhistucK wrote:
> *s
*shortcut
My last message was probably confusing, so continuing it -
By that, I mean that it makes more sense for 'contains' to exists already
on the web, than for 'includes'.
☆*PhistucK*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, PhistucK wrote:
> This is very debateable, really. To me, it makes sense
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
> wrote:
> > It sure sounds like 'contains' would be less likely to cause trouble,
> > and is also a slightly better name IMHO.
> >
> > Is Mozilla on board with renaming it? If they're n
This is very debateable, really. To me, it makes sense (and in my
experience, also exists) that "contains" makes more sense (as a shortcuts
for return this.indexOf(str) !== -1) than 'includes'.
☆*PhistucK*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:27
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> It sure sounds like 'contains' would be less likely to cause trouble,
> and is also a slightly better name IMHO.
>
> Is Mozilla on board with renaming it? If they're not keen, I think
> following their lead with 'contains' makes more sen
This is to ease debugging, not to solve every single case. As much as
possible, log it. On a 'best available' case.
☆*PhistucK*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:14 PM, 'Andreas Rossberg' via blink-dev <
blink-...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 27 November 2014 at 11:39, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov
On 27 November 2014 at 12:09, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
> One suggestion that came out of discussions with folks is:
> - add an "on-by-default" flag 'Enable new Javascript features' that could be
> turned off at run-time.
> Javascript features we ship will be under that flag for 1 stable release.
> I'll
On 27 November 2014 at 11:39, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dmitry Lomov
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Drew Wilson
>>> wrote:
What impact do we expect on web compatibility from apps tha
One suggestion that came out of discussions with folks is:
- add an "on-by-default" flag 'Enable new Javascript features' that could
be turned off at run-time.
Javascript features we ship will be under that flag for 1 stable release.
I'll investigate feasibility of that.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jochen Eisinger
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu Nov 27 2014 at 11:39:17 AM Dmitry Lomov
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Drew Wilson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dmitry Lomov
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 a
On Thu Nov 27 2014 at 11:39:17 AM Dmitry Lomov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Drew Wilson
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dmitry Lomov
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Drew Wilson
>>> wrote:
>>>
What impact do we expect on web co
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dmitry Lomov
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Drew Wilson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What impact do we expect on web compatibility from apps that may already
>>> be adding attributes named "i
Can we add a console log (not a warning) for the canary/dev/beta run
(perhaps stable, too?) for a little while to aid developers with possible
breakages?
If String.prototype.includes is overridden, deleted or accessed (called or
gotten), the log would be printed.
☆*PhistucK*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Drew Wilson
> wrote:
>
>> What impact do we expect on web compatibility from apps that may already
>> be adding attributes named "include", etc to their String objects?
>>
>> I think that adding attribu
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> What impact do we expect on web compatibility from apps that may already
> be adding attributes named "include", etc to their String objects?
>
> I think that adding attributes that Firefox is already shipping should be
> relatively safe, but
Resending to v8-users since apparently I didn't have permission to post
previously.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> What impact do we expect on web compatibility from apps that may already
> be adding attributes named "include", etc to their String objects?
>
> I think tha
25 matches
Mail list logo
