R
Richard Cornford
John said:
The evidence suggests that he cannot.
Richard.
The evidence suggests that he cannot.
Richard.
V
VK
John said:
That really was discussed N times in this newsgroup, and I believe that
you were participant of at least few of the relevant thread. But maybe
my progressing insanity (so properly diagnosed by Ph.D. Cornford
affecting my memory either.
In the requested minimum of words:
"incontinence of <this>" refers to a set of situations when - due to
ECMAScript engine specification bugs - <this> points to the expected
object at the moment of initialization/assignment but does point or may
point to a unexpected object a step later.
<http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html> will get you on hold
of the most known one. After you are done and if willing to continue
we'll move on ontimer calls.
R
Richard Cornford
VK said:
The question ahs certainly been asked many times, but you never manage
to answer it.
In a language that determines the value for - this - always, and only,
by how a function is called the - this - value should be expected to
differ depending on how a function is called, and so not necessarily be
the same at the point where a function is defined (and/or assigned) and
the point where it is called. Indeed the - this - value could not even
be assumed to be the same if the same function is called in two
different ways.
It may also be worth mentioning that as - this - in the global
execution context refers to the global object the implication of your
desire that - this - refer to the same value when a function is called
as when it is initialised/assigned is that in constrictors defined in
the global scope, and methods assigned to their prototypes in the
global scope (as they normally are), and as all inner functions must
then be declared/evaluated inside these global functions, is that -
this - would always refer to the global object inside all constructors,
methods and functions. Effectively making the - this - value worthless.
But once again all you are saying here is that because you do not
understand how the - this - value works you are incapable of expecting
it to refer to the values it does refer to, and in not being abler to
expect what you get you see what you get as in some sense
"incontinence", rather then the consistent product of predictable
mechanical logic that it actually is.
The - this - keyword always points to the 'expected' object, you just
need to understand the mechanism before you can have the correct
expectation. That may be beyond you personally, but that has no
implications for the language (or anyone else's ability to understand
it).
You mean the things where string arguments are evaluated in the global
scope and function reference arguments are called as values, giving
completely predictable values for - this - in those contexts?
Richard.
V
VK
Richard said:
Richard, it is a mute point, we tried it before. To even discuss "what
is wrong" it is needed first to agree that there is something wrong
around. In application to an ECMAScript-compliant behavior in order to
agree that something is wrong around it is necessary first to accept
that something can ever be wrong with official specifications.
This is why some agreement on the bug definition was a necessary lemma
to move on ("lemma" in the sense that it is not practically so
important, but it allows to prove other practical things later).
Your definition of a "bug" and "official specification" simply exclude
any existence possibility of problems like the one with <this>. That is
going to be another chain of my samples and your detailed explanations
why it is fully conforming to the existing specs (which is the point I
am not arguing with).
R
Richard Cornford
VK said:
There is something wrong around; your expectations differ from reality
("may point to a unexpected object").
On the contrary, not corresponding with the specification is virtually
the only criteria that could be applied if trying to declare that
something is wrong with "ECMAScript-compliant behaviour".
Your "problems like the one with <this>" have existence, but it is an
existence limited to the inside of your head. Everyone else can lean to
have expectations about the - this - value that correspond with reality.
For you your misconceptions is more significant than reality and so for
you the - this - value will often be unexpected. Neither the
specification nor the implementations are at fault in that.
Gibbering incoherently is a symptom of mental illness.
Richard.
J
John G Harris
<snip>
Good heavens! So that's what he's trying to say. Well, well!
Does he object to ordinary function calls, such as a.b.c(), or to new
expressions, such as new Thing() ?
John
R
Richard Cornford
John said:
It is unlikely that VK has any sort of expressible concept of what he
objects to. The vague suggestion that - this - should always refer to
the same object inside a function call as it refers to when the function
is created ends up with - this - always referring to the global object,
which hardly expands its usefulness. Probably his mind doesn't go beyond
"I want it to be exactly how I think it should be at any pint I wish to
use it, and everything else is wrong".
A proposal sufficiently logically consistent that it could even be
implemented is about the last thing that would be expected of VK.
Richard.