Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20303
| From | Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| Subject | Re: Alignment of three tables |
| Date | 2013-06-15 13:53 +0200 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <kphkjm$1fv$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <kp60kh$nrp$1@dont-email.me> <2068082.pen2y8QiGc@PointedEars.de> <kpf6dg$gpb$1@news.albasani.net> <m21u84tuoo.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl> <2664592.4ckUSR1F5s@PointedEars.de> |
On 2013-06-15 11:41, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Eric Bednarz wrote:
>> Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> writes:
>>> There's one thing I don't understand about that algorithm:
>>>
>>> {} + ""
>>
>> That's a block statement followed by an unary + operator with the empty
>> string as its operand.
...
> The curious – maybe not obvious – thing here is, though, that it is _not_
> the "" that causes the "[object Object]" result, but the conversion of the
> Object instance to a primitive value.
Exactly. I've been reading the standard up and down, looking for my
mistake. I was really perplexed, because _either_ of the operands should
have forced a string result, even with the hint for ToPrimitive for
native objects defaulting to Number. That what I was looking at wasn't
an addition at all never entered my mind. The only consolation is that
"{} + ..." is very unlikely to occur outside of an expression in a
normal program.
- stefan
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Alignment of three tables "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-09 08:49 -0600
Re: Alignment of three tables Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-06-09 08:18 -0700
Re: Alignment of three tables Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-06-09 20:02 +0000
Re: Alignment of three tables "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-09 15:01 -0600
Re: Alignment of three tables Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-06-09 22:50 +0000
Re: Alignment of three tables Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-10 00:46 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-10 14:41 +0100
Re: Alignment of three tables Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-10 17:35 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-10 09:08 -0600
Re: Alignment of three tables "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2013-06-10 11:16 -0600
Re: Alignment of three tables Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-06-11 02:05 +0000
Re: Alignment of three tables Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-11 05:09 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-06-11 10:59 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-11 16:51 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-06-14 15:38 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-06-14 20:26 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-06-14 21:22 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-06-15 00:36 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-15 12:04 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-15 11:41 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 13:53 +0200
Re: Alignment of three tables Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-06-17 04:28 -0700
Re: Alignment of three tables "Andy" <andy@NOSPAMmanyplay.com> - 2013-06-10 09:19 +0100
Re: Alignment of three tables Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-12 18:56 +0100
csiph-web