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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #28022 > unrolled thread

Calling constructor function with or without new

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  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

#28022 — Calling constructor function with or without new

I'm using Rhino. What's the difference between calling a constructor with or
without new?

js> var x = Number("123");
js> print(x);
123
js> typeof x;
number


js> var y = new Number("123");
js> typeof y;
object


Why is x a "number" rather than a Number? Why is y an "object"?



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28029

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'm using Rhino. What's the difference between calling a constructor with or
> without new?
>
> js> var x = Number("123");
> js> print(x);
> 123
> js> typeof x;
> number

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 
and read section "15.7.1 The Number Constructor Called as a Function" 
which says "When Number is called as a function rather than as a 
constructor, it performs a type conversion." and defines
   Number ( [ value ] )
as
   Returns a number value (not a Number object) computed by 
ToNumber(value) if value was supplied,
else returns +0.

The type conversions "ToNumber" performs depending on the type of the 
value are defined in section "9.3" of that PDF.






--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28039

On 07/06/15 14:46, Martin Honnen wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> I'm using Rhino. What's the difference between calling a constructor
>> with or
>> without new?
>>
>> js> var x = Number("123");
>> js> print(x);
>> 123
>> js> typeof x;
>> number
>
> 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
> and read section "15.7.1 The Number Constructor Called as a Function"
> which says "When Number is called as a function rather than as a
> constructor, it performs a type conversion." and defines
>    Number ( [ value ] )
> as
>    Returns a number value (not a Number object) computed by
> ToNumber(value) if value was supplied,
> else returns +0.
>
> The type conversions "ToNumber" performs depending on the type of the
> value are defined in section "9.3" of that 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>


-- 
Joao Rodrigues

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28057

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.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28058

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". One can read the preamble of the HTML version [1] 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.

[1] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/>
-- 
Joao Rodrigues

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28060

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.

> One can read the preamble of the HTML version [1]

Why don’t you?

> 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.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28061

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28065

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.  

> That confusion lies only within your delusional mind.

/Ad hominem/ when you are out of good arguments.  I see.

> 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.  Because it is the one the 
Ecma membership has seen and voted on (they voted on a final draft that 
would undergo changes editorial in nature at most, as from Edition 5 to the 
5.1 Edition), that they thereby declared an industry standard or *norm*.

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.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28066

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28069

Joao Rodrigues wrote:

> 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.

No, if there are several versions of a technical specification, then it 
needs to be specified which of them are the normative ones.  In this case, 
there is a PDF version and an HTML version (formerly, there have been PDF 
and Word document versions).

AISB, the people responsible for making the Specification an industry 
standard, the members that participate in the Ecma International General 
Assembly, have not seen the HTML version and they have not voted on it 
because it was produced afterwards.  So it cannot be the normative one.

It follows, and has been stated by the author of the HTML version, that the 
definitive one is the PDF version (meaning that where the HTML version 
differs from the PDF version, the PDF version matters), which makes it also 
the normative one.
 
> [nonsense]

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28070

Thomas Lahn wrote:

[truisms]


-- 
Joao Rodrigues

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28072

Joao Rodrigues wrote:

> Thomas Lahn wrote:
> 
> [truisms]

I have only reworded there what I had written before; the meaning of it has 
not changed a bit.  How strange that you can agree with this so much that 
you call it “truisms”, but found it necessary to be impolite in your reply 
to what I had written before.

Maybe you do need to read more carefully.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28073

Thomas Lahn wrote:
> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> 
>> Thomas Lahn wrote:
>>
>> [truisms]
> 
> I have only reworded there what I had written before; the meaning of it has
> not changed a bit.

You never come clean, don't you? No, you have changed your initial
meaning of normative by rephrasing your speech and amusingly deleting
the "non-normative" nonsense.

> How strange that you can agree with this so much that 
> you call it “truisms”,

Agreed only with the truism on how Ecma operates.

> but found it necessary to be impolite in your reply 
> to what I had written before.
> 

That's exactly what you do most of the time with everyone on this NG.


-- 
Joao Rodrigues

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28074

Joao Rodrigues wrote:

> Thomas Lahn wrote:
>> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>>> Thomas Lahn wrote:
>>>
>>> [truisms]
>> 
>> I have only reworded there what I had written before; the meaning of it
>> has not changed a bit.
> 
> You never come clean, don't you?

You have not seen me lying, and you never will.

> No, you have changed your initial meaning of normative by rephrasing your 
> speech and amusingly deleting the "non-normative" nonsense.

I know what I have meant and what I have written; evidentially, you do not.  
EOD.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28089

In comp.lang.javascript message <2335714.5RdYzVOHqV@PointedEars.de>,
Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:00:24, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> posted:

>
>I know what I have meant and what I have written; evidentially, you do not.

Perhaps; but your command of English is manifestly unreliable.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.  For Mail, see Home Page.  Turnpike, WinXP.
 Web  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
 Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
 DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6;  see my <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28079

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:14:50 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:

>It follows, and has been stated by the author of the HTML version, that the 
>definitive one is the PDF version (meaning that where the HTML version 
>differs from the PDF version, the PDF version matters), which makes it also 
>the normative one.

And, does the HTML version differ from the PDF version?

Hans-Georg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28083

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> It follows, and has been stated by the author of the HTML version, that 
>> the definitive one is the PDF version (meaning that where the HTML 
>> version differs from the PDF version, the PDF version matters), which 
>> makes it also the normative one.
> 
> And, does the HTML version differ from the PDF version?

Don't you know better?

It is very impolite to point out the state of undress of an emporer who 
believes himself to be beautifully clad.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28090

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 8:16:51 AM UTC-5, Scott Sauyet wrote:
> Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> It follows, and has been stated by the author of the HTML version, that 
> >> the definitive one is the PDF version (meaning that where the HTML 
> >> version differs from the PDF version, the PDF version matters), which 
> >> makes it also the normative one.
> > 
> > And, does the HTML version differ from the PDF version?
> 
> Don't you know better?
> 
> It is very impolite to point out the state of undress of an emporer who 
> believes himself to be beautifully clad.


"One fine morning, when the emperor felt hot and bored, he extricated himself carefully from under the mountain of clothes and is now living happily as a swineherd in another story. The tailor is canonized as the patron saint of all consultants, because in spite of the enormous fees he extracted, he was never able to convince his clients of his dawning realization that their clothes have no Emperor." -- C.A.R. Hoare

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web