dignifiedquire at gmail.com (2014-06-17T19:10:47.099Z)
FWIW I think this is a non issue and "how many" should not be relevant.
If developers understand the issue, the fix is straight forward.
instead of doing this
```javascript
if (obj.entries) {
// do stuff with entries
} else if(Array.isArray(obj)) {
// do stuff with obj
}
```
or this
`var entries = obj.entries || obj;`
we should just advocate this:
```javascript
if (Array.isArray(obj)) {
// do stuff with obj
} else if(obj.entries) {
// do stuff with entry property
}
```
or using `instanceof` when the realm is not a problem (if performance is a
concern and Array.isArray is the bottleneck which is rarely the case)
This also seems to be an API only related problem where both `Array` and `
Object` could be passed as parameter but yeah, objects with properties
named as `list`, `items`, or `entries` are quite common but I personally
prefer a future proof approach/small refactoring than a stopper for new
specs.
my 2 cents
FWIW I think this is a non issue and "how many" should not be relevant. If developers understand the issue, the fix is straight forward. instead of doing this ```javascript if (obj.entries) { // do stuff with entries } else if(Array.isArray(obj)) { // do stuff with obj } ``` or this `var entries = obj.entries || obj;` we should just advocate this: ```javascript if (Array.isArray(obj)) { // do stuff with obj } else if(obj.entries) { // do stuff with entry property } ``` or using `instanceof` when the realm is not a problem (if performance is a concern and Array.isArray is the bottleneck which is rarely the case) This also seems to be an API only related problem where both `Array` and ` Object` could be passed as parameter but yeah, objects with properties named as `list`, `items`, or `entries` are quite common but I personally prefer a future proof approach/small refactoring than a stopper for new specs. my 2 cents On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff at google.com> wrote: > Right. Would love to know the size/traffic of the "number of sites" > affected. > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Would .items fare better, I wonder. >>> >> >> Or outreach to sites the break? >> >> Rick >> >> >>> >>> /be >>> >>> Oliver Hunt wrote: >>> >>>> It turns out there are a number of sites (such as mobile.twitter.com < >>>> http://mobile.twitter.com>) that are property detecting .entries on >>>> objects, and that means that they're breaking when Array.prototype.entries >>>> is provided. >>>> >>>> >>>> We're removing it from JSC now, until we can find a way to expose it >>>> without causing site breakage, although this does seem like fixing it would >>>> require bringing back the awful "pretend that you're undefined" horror. >>>> >>>> --Oliver >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss at mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss at mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140617/07d3bc67/attachment.html>