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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #29155

Re: array-like objects

Show key headers only | View raw

John Harris wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:13:17 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:27:13 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:59:02 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>>>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.
>>> Agent won't let me make it one line.
>> I strongly doubt that your software is that b0rked that it would not 
>> allow you to edit that part of the posting before you submit it, if all 
>> else fails.
> 
> It appears that physical line lengths are built in to Agent. They
> conform to the relevant standards.

That is not the point, and having an attribution that is long but fits in 
one line is not the goal here.  The point is that you are including 
information in the attribution that is superfluous; omitting that 
information would *easily* keep the attribution within one line.  And how 
well you know that (this is not the first time we are discussing this).

>>>>> The syntax says
>>>>>   identifier_b = identifier_a ;
>>>>> The semantics are complicated. They say
>>>>>   If    The storage area associated with identifier_a holds a
>>>>>         primitive (non-object) value
>>>>>   Then  The storage area associated with identifier_b will now also
>>>>>         hold this primitive value, but a different instance of it
>>>>>   Else  The object associated with identifier_a will now also be
>>>>>         associated with identifier_b
>>>>>         (Note : there are other ways of saying this)
>>>> How did you get that idea?
>>> By reading ECMA 262.
>> If you think that ECMA-262 (which Edition?) is confirming your ideas, 
>> then you will have no difficulty citing the corresponding algorithms
>> and referring explicitly to the relevant parts.
> 
> This is true.
> 
> Perhaps you are asking me to explain my conclusions.

No, obviously I am requiring you to substantiate your claims so that I need 
not write them off as more examples of your misconceptions about ECMAScript 
like before.

> I will do this, but it is best done in a separate article,

It belongs in this thread, where your claims were made.  A proper change of 
Subject header field value would be acceptable, though.

> which won't be written today.

No problem for me as long as it is written.  Your other alternative is very 
simple: retract your claims.

>> In any case, your newest attempt of trying to shift the burden of proof 
>> is unsuccessful.
>>
>> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof>
> 
> You asked me where I got it from. I told you.

No, you did not.  You made the new claim that the Specification 
substantiates your previous one, but you did not say how.  Unless you at 
least cite explicitly the parts that you think substantiate the former (a 
quotation would be of advantage, too), that new claim is only based on your 
interpretation of what you read, and your interpretation can be wrong.  As
a result, so far your previous claim also lacks substantiation.

Given that you have already claimed that ECMAScript would specify its  
conforming implementations to such a detail as memory access, which it  
obviously should not and does not, and that the implementation that is 
easier to program is one that does not implement your idea/follow your 
interpretation, your idea and interpretation are most likely wrong.

-- 
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

Re: array-like objects Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2016-01-02 13:27 -0200
  Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-02 20:48 +0100
    Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-03 15:50 +0000
      Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-03 16:59 +0100
        Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-04 11:15 +0000
          Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-04 15:27 +0100
            Re: array-like objects Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-01-04 15:57 +0000
            Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:47 +0000
              Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-05 20:13 +0100
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-06 16:24 +0000
                Re: array-like objects Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2016-01-06 14:45 -0300
                Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-06 19:27 +0100
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-07 11:00 +0000
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:02 +0000
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-09 20:07 +0000
                Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-10 09:03 +0100
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-10 10:03 +0000
                Re: array-like objects Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-10 23:21 +1100
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-10 15:59 +0000
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-10 15:30 +0000
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-11 11:03 +0000
                Re: array-like objects "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-01-11 10:36 -0800
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:59 +0000
                Re: array-like objects "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2016-01-12 12:47 +0100
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-06 10:50 +0000
                Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-09 05:01 +0100
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-09 19:07 +0000
                Re: array-like objects John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-09 19:23 +0000
  Re: array-like objects Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2016-01-03 04:26 -0800
    Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-03 16:54 +0100
      Re: array-like objects Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-04 00:18 +0100

csiph-web