Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: simple error Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:40:05 +0100 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 41 Message-ID: <44374431.ADoVJf56ko@PointedEars.de> References: <2919102.Zlc1T3vdmV@PointedEars.de> <1745799.hd9xs91tD1@PointedEars.de> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: solani.org 1419864024 22374 eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXsAod51AZ/59g4jtWXJ7wOD4+6r65IBijSGaivy5YU0J2eaoobPO/cvQAI48RkA== (29 Dec 2014 14:40:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:40:24 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 X-User-ID: eJwNy7EBACAIA7CX1FKEcwTk/xN0zBBCp+YWpQqbPa1qZIdUxk3a+ULYKheAMhpoi3NcHLSUTt9z6P0RjL0edqkVxg== Cancel-Lock: sha1:AwZKEym3XXFcj3t5M1bJqP+SqwM= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwYERACEIA7CVWp5WHQc82X+ET/SZvistp0ZTuB0yz2wyXefiSYjJDhcBRGHe2m5O8/wMbhCC Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:26419 Christoph M. Becker wrote: > Talking about ECMAScript (implementations) clarifies things considerably, > because then we can look up the relevant part of the current > specification[1] (instead of speculating): > > | A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to support > | program and regular expression syntax not described in this > | specification. > > So the code above is not in error. The above code would not be in error if it were considered code in/for an implementation of ECMAScript (in this case, Mozilla JavaScript), because that would still be a conforming implementation of ECMAScript (Editions 1 to 5.1, excluding 4). In this case, however, it is not in error because the Mozilla JavaScript version in question is an implementation, at least with regard to the syntax feature relevant here, of the latest working draft of ECMAScript Edition 6, which specifies that syntax instead. (Voting on that draft to become a standard was planned for this year, but eventually postponed. [2]) ISTM that implementations can extend an Edition of the Specification in this way, which, if adopted, could lead to additional standard syntax in later Editions, was the secondary goal when this paragraph was introduced with the first Edition. The primary goal was to reconcile the differences between Netscape JavaScript 1.1 and Microsoft JScript 1.0 (and other versions and implementations later), so that both existing, used languages could have syntax extensions but still be conforming implementations of ECMAScript. IOW, "standard followed practice" from the beginning. > [1] [2] -- PointedEars FAQ: | SVN: Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.