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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #28066

Re: Calling constructor function with or without new

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas Lahn wrote:
> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> 
>> Thomas Lahn wrote:
>>> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>  >>> | 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.
> 
> Yes, they do, in the very source that you are citing and quoting from.

Why Ecma would need to affirm ECMA-262 whatever edition is a normative
specification? Of course it is, unless stated contrarily.

> 
>> That confusion lies only within your delusional mind.
> 
> /Ad hominem/ when you are out of good arguments.  I see.

You do the same all the time - only *you* do not realize this *fact*. So
I'm just acting like a mirror.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> However, if there are discrepancies, then the PDF version is the one that 
> matters, the “definitive” or the “normative” one.

Firstly you dismissed the word 'definitive', by writing 'it never
was'... Now you are introducing a new meaning for it as 'normative'
which does not appear anywhere on the Ecma website or the preamble of
the specification.

So I have to *repeat* the citation in my first reply to your post (the
one you have highlighted on your reply):

| The PDF version is the *definitive* specification. Any discrepancies
| between this HTML version and the PDF version are unintentional.

It means that the PDF version will prevail over the HTML version in case
of unintentional discrepancies found by chance between them. It does not
mean that the PDF version is "normative" or the HTML version is
"non-normative" as you are insisting to blare out. Come off it!

> If you do not understand the standardization processes of the computer 
> industry, and you really do not, I strongly suggest you get yourself 
> informed about it on the respective Web sites, and do not post on the 
> subject again until you did that.
> 

/Ad hominem/ when you are out of good arguments. See?

-- 
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