dignifiedquire at gmail.com (2014-06-17T19:11:10.306Z)
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > I wish to live in your world of unicorns and magic for in that world I AM A WIZARD.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > I wish to live in your world of unicorns and magic for in that world I AM A WIZARD. > 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/20140617/7f5af616/attachment.html>