domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-06-17T20:50:07.242Z)
> Yup, there was an issue that was reported and fixed fairly recently pointing out that for-of was inconsistent with for-in in this respect. for-of statement iteration always ignored undefined/null (always = since it was added in rev6). I've only requested in https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273 to align for-of iteration in statements and comprehensions to have the same behaviour w.r.t. undefined/null.
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-06-17T20:49:41.538Z)
> Yup, there was an issue that was reported and fixed fairly recently pointing out that for-of was inconsistent with for-in in this respect. for-of statement iteration always ignored undefined/null (always = since it was added in rev6). I've only requested in https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2737 to align for-of iteration in statements and comprehensions to have the same behaviour w.r.t. undefined/null.
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-06-17T20:49:22.157Z)
> Yup, there was an issue that was reported and fixed fairly recently pointing out that for-of was inconsistent with for-in in this respect. for-of statement iteration always ignored undefined/null (always = since it was added in rev6). I've only requested in https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273 to align for-of iteration in statements and comprehensions to have the same behaviour w.r.t. undefined/null.
> On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > > >/ Somehow I missed when we decided to allow null/undefined as the iterable value in for-of loops. > />/ > />/ The following test passes using the spec algorithms: > />/ > />/ var c = 0; > />/ for (var x of null) { > />/ c++; > />/ } > />/ assert.equal(c, 0); > />/ > />/ However, if we get a null value here we are most likely just masking an user bug. > />/ > />/ I assume the justification is that for-in allows null here? However, for-of is new syntax and we have the chance to get this right this time around. > / > Yup, there was an issue that was reported and fixed fairly recently pointing out that for-of was inconsistent with for-in in this respect. for-of statement iteration always ignored undefined/null (always = since it was added in rev6). I've only requested in [1] to align for-of iteration in statements and comprehensions to have the same behaviour w.r.t. undefined/null. [1] https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140613/f3f03d42/attachment.html>