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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #28061

Re: Calling constructor function with or without new

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas Lahn wrote:
> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> 
>> On 09/06/2015 10:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>>>> On 07/06/15 14:46, Martin Honnen wrote:
>>>>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>> As you use Rhino which I think did never get updated to implement
>>>>> ECMAScript 5 you might want to download
>>>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf
>>>>> […]
>>>>
>>>> One can read the online version at:
>>>> <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.7.1>
>>>> <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-9.3>
>>>
>>> No, those are the *non-normative* versions of the *5.1* Edition.
>>
>> ACK the wrong edition (5.1 instead of the 3rd edition), but not the
>> "non-normative".
> 
> Wrong.
> 


> 
>> which states the following:
>>
>> | This is the HTML rendering of Ecma-262 Edition 5.1, The ECMAScript
>> | Language Specification.
>> |
>> | The PDF rendering of this document is located at http://www.ecma-> | international.org/ecma-262/5.1/ECMA-262.pdf.
>> |
>> | The PDF version is the definitive specification. Any discrepancies
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> | between this HTML version and the PDF version are unintentional.
> 
> AISB, the HTML version is _not_ the normative (or, as Jason Orendorff put it 
> there, the "definitive") one.  It never was.  The PDF versions are those 
> that the Ecma International General Assembly voted on, the *normative* ones.
> 

Ecma does not affirm there is a normative or a non-normative version of
the specification. That confusion lies only within your delusional mind.

The preamble mentioned contains a legal disclaimer about any
unintentional discrepancies between the two versions:

| Any discrepancies between this HTML version and the PDF version
| are unintentional.

-- 
Joao Rodrigues

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Calling constructor function with or without new Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-08 00:08 +1000
  Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Martin Honnen <mahotrash@yahoo.de> - 2015-06-07 19:46 +0200
    Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-07 21:50 -0300
      Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-09 15:05 +0200
        Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-09 12:45 -0300
          Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-09 18:32 +0200
            Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-09 14:51 -0300
              Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-09 22:39 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-09 19:36 -0300
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 18:14 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-10 14:13 -0300
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 19:34 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-06-10 14:57 -0300
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 20:00 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-06-11 21:44 +0100
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> - 2015-06-11 10:36 +0200
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 06:16 -0700
                Re: Calling constructor function with or without new "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2015-06-11 20:40 -0700

csiph-web