Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #28069

Re: Calling constructor function with or without new

Show key headers only | View raw

Joao Rodrigues wrote:

> Thomas Lahn wrote:
>> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>>> Thomas Lahn wrote:
>>>> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>>>>> | This is the HTML rendering of Ecma-262 Edition 5.1, The ECMAScript
>>>>> | Language Specification.
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The PDF rendering of this document is located at http://www.ecma-> |
>>>>> | international.org/ecma-262/5.1/ECMA-262.pdf.
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The PDF version is the definitive specification. Any discrepancies
>>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> | between this HTML version and the PDF version are unintentional.
>>>>
>>>> AISB, the HTML version is _not_ the normative (or, as Jason Orendorff
>>>> put
>>>> it there, the "definitive") one.  It never was.  The PDF versions are
>>>> those that the Ecma International General Assembly voted on, the
>>>> *normative* ones.
>>> Ecma does not affirm there is a normative or a non-normative version of
>>> the specification.
>> Yes, they do, in the very source that you are citing and quoting from.
> 
> Why Ecma would need to affirm ECMA-262 whatever edition is a normative
> specification? Of course it is, unless stated contrarily.

No, if there are several versions of a technical specification, then it 
needs to be specified which of them are the normative ones.  In this case, 
there is a PDF version and an HTML version (formerly, there have been PDF 
and Word document versions).

AISB, the people responsible for making the Specification an industry 
standard, the members that participate in the Ecma International General 
Assembly, have not seen the HTML version and they have not voted on it 
because it was produced afterwards.  So it cannot be the normative one.

It follows, and has been stated by the author of the HTML version, that the 
definitive one is the PDF version (meaning that where the HTML version 
differs from the PDF version, the PDF version matters), which makes it also 
the normative one.
 
> [nonsense]

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Calling constructor function with or without new Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-08 00:08 +1000
  Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Martin Honnen <mahotrash@yahoo.de> - 2015-06-07 19:46 +0200
    Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-07 21:50 -0300
      Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-09 15:05 +0200
        Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-09 12:45 -0300
          Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-09 18:32 +0200
            Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-09 14:51 -0300
              Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-09 22:39 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-09 19:36 -0300
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 18:14 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-10 14:13 -0300
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 19:34 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-10 14:57 -0300
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 20:00 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-06-11 21:44 +0100
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> - 2015-06-11 10:36 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 06:16 -0700
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2015-06-11 20:40 -0700

csiph-web