VK said:
By your books any stuff becomes His word as soon as it's
spelled by W3. By my books a stuff *may* be a nonsense as
long as it violates the end-used experience/expectations
(see my definition of the "end-user" in the older topic).
So you are saying that a language implementation is wrong if it doesn't
do exactly what each and every individual programmer expects it to do
(regardless of their knowledge of, and experience in, that language).
That is such a bizarre and unrealistic criteria that it would likely be
taken as a symptom of mental illness.
Looking at the OP's code, you are saying that because the OP does not
expect the assignment of a newly created Array object to an indexed
member of another Array to replace any references already assigned to
that Array member, then the language should not make the assignment.
But the next programmer out of the hat is likely to expect assigning a
reference to a newly created Array object to a member of another Array
to replace any pre-existing references. The language cannot do both
without being able to literally read the mind of the programmer in
question (not a realistic expectation of a programming language).
Somewhere there has to be a statement of what the language should do, in
all cases, and independent of the beliefs and attitudes of anyone trying
to use that language. And that statement is to be found in ECMA 262.
Or are you saying that the language is wrong when its behaviour does not
conform with your personal (and ill-informed) expectations? That would
be pushing ego into insanity.
I'm really trying to love the Big Brother (W3) ...
... . W3 even complained to ISA about it... An old story though...
Javascript is standardised by the ECMA, the W3C has nothing to do with
defining the behaviour of programming languages.
Also during my 15 years experience I've been learned
that you never deal with standards.
Which might explain why 15 years of experience leaves you creating such
catastrophically bad code. I learnt enough in my first couple of years
programming that I would be utterly ashamed to even be contemplating
writing some of the code you have been posting here in all seriousness
over the last couple of months.
You should recall what happen with the event handlers. You spent months
failing to achieve what you wanted, whinging about buggy browsers,
dismissing and disregarding the explanations of how it could be achieved
provided by others, and trying to convince innocent bystanders that the
whole thing was complex to the pint of being impossible. But when it
came down to it the solution turned out to be one_line_of_code that
could have been provided by any of the regular contributors to this
group in exchange for a well-phrased, precise, question on the subject.
Judging only by its results, your entire approach is wrong. It is not
productive for you, it wastes the time of others and it certainly should
not be recommended to anyone.
You always deal with particular engines build
more-or-less upon these standards.
When scripting web browsers for the Internet you are not working with
particular engines, you are dealing with an unknown range of engines.
Sometimes it does more than the standards promise,
sometimes it does lesser than it should. The only
right answer can be obtained from a test.
A test is a futile activity without objective criteria to judge the
result.
P.S. The above discussed array behavior is fully ECMA-compliant.
Which "above discussed array behaviour"? The behaviour you described as
"A BIG bug in JavaScript mechanics"? Nothing on the subject has been
quoted by you.
Richard.
