Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ben Bacarisse Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: I don't get it Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:05:20 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 33 Message-ID: <877dl5kodr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> References: <305fecc4-43da-4378-8430-ed10ac4dbe5bn@googlegroups.com> <20917gl3dv8shs6qqf1dqginq69e50aa54@4ax.com> <8735vytcwa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87lf9qrozz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <875z0tq723.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8b594439-379f-431f-8bf6-43c8066d3525n@googlegroups.com> <87o8ejpzv0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <845c8b8e-d415-4b41-8327-6b31bc50825an@googlegroups.com> <1ae0aa1d-162d-4666-acf9-50376e1acd9fn@googlegroups.com> <8090782c-7564-4881-a97e-70dd1e865674n@googlegroups.com> <87y2dmmgln.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <875z0pn1sr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87im4pkzg8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c26916253c32cdde332367cf4f34a56"; logging-data="21310"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183VMqXjtXA8p3Hh+R12IjJrSHo1N4wq9U=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:/ki24swtx9IuG5FiwovFmccflFQ= sha1:f3wH5LAPzUOugs0jEdZ9TLVnf1U= X-BSB-Auth: 1.58ae8fabda565e5d5091.20210414140520BST.877dl5kodr.fsf@bsb.me.uk Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:39935 The Natural Philosopher writes: > On 14/04/2021 10:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Anyway, you don't post the code that you say caused problems, only the >> "corrected" code which is exactly as I would expect it to look. > > Have you, excuse me asking, ever written a single line of production > code under a deadline, to solve a real world problem , in your life, > or are you in fact just another 'Computer Scientist'? No need to excuse the question. It's a reasonable one. The answer is yes. > I really don't remember whether it was IE4 or 6. It was whatever XP > started out with. It's a shame you didn't say that that up front. Given that you did say you couldn't find what the specification says, coming clean about not knowing what browser you where using would probably have prevented anyone commenting! It was the confidently stated incorrect remarks that got people answering. > And no, I am not going to keep the unfixed code merely to prove to > some armchair theorist 14 years later than I am in fact not lying. No one wants to see the old code. Its the incorrect remarks you made about a code fragment posted here that got people commenting. In particular, your remark that the language spec did not say what the correct behaviour should be when in fact it does (and it did at the time you specified). -- Ben.