Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Expression for the global object
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 17:33:17 +0200
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <1658801.5VaNTTmUhE@PointedEars.de>
References: <JavaScript-20150528222318@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <Function-20150531094321@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <87twuthx5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5452925.Zt9fTqAOub@PointedEars.de> <87382cj1f5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7546503.qSl4iIXIz1@PointedEars.de> <87wpzohk1k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Trace: solani.org 1433086553 9532 eJwNycEBwCAIA8CVQAmBcQRl/xHa+x62qzfN4YbBdFDyvCXS/At3RvuGaLGS4KnolybMWptzPxgYEQs= (31 May 2015 15:35:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 15:35:53 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2
X-User-ID: eJwFwQkBACAIA8BMyjOIM0D6R/DOxI831M3V1nZ5Ucl+OzDxanARqUV9IqHOPBfowxJDT/CmzVKc1frmA3X/Fo0=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sdh4iDzBeUMuD+JU/eU6VPZbfxo=
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwYEBgDAIA7CXYKwFz5Ei/59ggqBTeQleLHbYzDKZnDMBA1BvMJ4865/6hE1pxWFy+wcRBxEG
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:27946

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> Given:
> 
>   'use strict';
>   console.log((function () { return eval; })()("this") === global);
>   console.log(eval("this") === global);
>   console.log(this === global);
> 
> nodejs prints:
> 
>   NaN
>   undefined
>   undefined

No, it does not.  Because Node.js’s V8 JavaScript is not so badly designed 
that it would print “NaN” or “undefined” as the result of a “===” operation.

> […]
>> <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-10.4.2>
> 
> Sure, but what does 15.1.2.1.1 (Direct Call to Eval) have to say about
> it? You can interpret the words there much more readily than I can, and
> it would seem that at least one implementation has decided that the
> evaluation of the thunk above is not a "direct call to eval".

We’ll see.

-- 
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.