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

From	"Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.javascript
Subject	Re: not "autovivification", but ...?
Date	2016-06-01 18:46 +0200
Organization	solani.org
Message-ID	<nin3hl$3d1$1@solani.org> (permalink)
References	<autovivification-20160531121607@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <strict-20160531125113@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <nijv1k$106$1@solani.org> <73cd9155-4dba-40be-8cd8-2a18726969bd@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 01.06.2016 at 16:51, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:11:39 AM UTC-5, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>
>> `this` is not special in this regard;  you can assign to undefined
>> properties of *any* object.
> 
> Most, not any. For example: [1]
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That does not follow. Ex:
> 
> //assume this function is defined in a 3rd party library
> function getSomeObject(){
>   return Object.seal({
>     hello: "world"
>   })
> }
>
> [1] <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/seal>

Thanks for pointing that out.  I most certainly should catch up with ES
5.1 ASAP. :)

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous 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