domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-06-17T20:50:34.796Z)
On Jun 12, 2014, at 3:18 PM, André Bargull wrote: > https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2737 Oh, right it's the comprehension consistency I was think of, so yes the ignoring null/undefined isn't a new change. I don't really care which way we go on this. Clean slate world I'd throw. Messy world - coin flip.
On Jun 12, 2014, at 3:18 PM, André Bargull wrote: > Corrected link: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2737 > > > On 6/13/2014 12:16 AM, André Bargull wrote: >>> 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 > Oh, right it's the comprehension consistency I was think of, so yes the ignoring null/undefined isn't a new change. I don't really care which way we go on this. Clean slate world I'd throw. Messy world - coin flip. Allen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140612/d1b1b087/attachment-0001.html>