Re: not "autovivification", but ...?

Path	csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	"Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.javascript
Subject	Re: not "autovivification", but ...?
Date	Tue, 31 May 2016 14:11:32 +0200
Organization	solani.org
Lines	25
Message-ID	<nijv1k$106$1@solani.org> (permalink)
References	<autovivification-20160531121607@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <strict-20160531125113@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Trace	solani.org 1464696692 1030 eJwFwQcBADAIAzBNnHLsrIB/CUtgIcH0QDgO94oDFTN3KfpJd+G2cthTvTXjSq5m2j2ZDxdWEVE= (31 May 2016 12:11:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@news.solani.org
NNTP-Posting-Date	Tue, 31 May 2016 12:11:32 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
X-User-ID	eJwNycEVAEEEBNGUeENb4Vim8w9h1PGXHyg6DA5zOn/2UWyiEnnzk0kPG7XBQjVlf47oLVbwAQZ1EKk=
In-Reply-To	<strict-20160531125113@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Cancel-Lock	sha1:IpDSCrf4ffEns4/Pa5/x2/hTFuQ=
X-NNTP-Posting-Host	eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLvIHIWVnxL6F36VBMBRKRmysy/1d6rMC+Y5HQ40K5JcQu6RWSNOtuch4GDA/P
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:30586

Show key headers only | View raw

On 31.05.2016 at 13:51, Stefan Ram wrote:

> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> "use strict"; this.b = 1;
> 
>   And I wonder, why in strict mode in the outmost scope, when
> 
> b = 1
> 
>   is forbidden (given that »this.b« does not exist)
> 
> this.b = 1
> 
>   is allowed. What is the rationale for allowing it with »this.«?

`this` is not special in this regard;  you can assign to undefined
properties of *any* object.

Also consider that accessing undefined properties of an object yield
`undefined` (but not an error), so it appears to be logical to allow
assigning another value to such undefined properties.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

Thread

Re: not "autovivification", but ...? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-05-31 14:11 +0200
  Re: not "autovivification", but ...? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-06-01 07:51 -0700
    Re: not "autovivification", but ...? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-06-01 18:46 +0200

csiph-web