Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Jake Jarvis Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: setDate() Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:25:20 +0100 Lines: 33 Message-ID: <9kvaegFk3sU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de cR/bx/An8UnBSahYN1uavgD7VpaidjmlzyrmxO9aMHb13KQlE= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.javascript:9282 On 15.12.2011 22:39, Evertjan. wrote: > Gene Wirchenko wrote on 15 dec 2011 in comp.lang.javascript: >>>> Is this behaviour that I can count on? > [...] >> JavaScript's standard: >> >> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf >> Did I get the right one? > > This is like saying you cannot get killed having green at the traffic > lights, BECAUSE the law says other lights must have red. > > No, ECMA defines how a javascript engine should work in their eyes, > no javascript engine works exactly that way, because the builders of the > engines either think of an in their eyse better way, or because they made > stupid mistakes. > > So you cannot count on what ECMA says. > > You should test it. > Test *what*? What *does* ECMA say about date objects and rolling over/under/around? I am curious, can it be decided whether the pertinent "helper procedures" in the specification are correct and do handle the rolling? (I'd lean towards yes, it can be decided, but I don't "see" it) -- Jake Jarvis