Comments on: What to Expect From typeof http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/ Tips and tricks for web developers. Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:29:51 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Rob Miller http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/comment-page-1/#comment-295 Rob Miller Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:02:24 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=29#comment-295 COOL SITE COOL SITE

]]> By: Las limitaciones de Typeof - elWebmaster.com http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/comment-page-1/#comment-90 Las limitaciones de Typeof - elWebmaster.com Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:41:12 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=29#comment-90 [...] Fuente: scriptNode [...] [...] Fuente: scriptNode [...]

]]> By: Phil M http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Phil M Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:40:35 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=29#comment-43 Agreed :) Looking forward to the update Agreed :) Looking forward to the update

]]> By: Matt Hackett http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Matt Hackett Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:33:03 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=29#comment-38 Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, Crockford's style is very rigid, very black and white. For the record, I agree with most of what he preaches. But he often declares things as "incorrect" or "a mistake" when they're sometimes just curious or unexpected. They're not always necessarily wrong, just maybe odd. Actually I've been rewriting this particular article since I read his book JavaScript: The Good Parts. It's now about three times as long and offers workarounds for when typeof is not helpful. Hopefully I'll have that done soon. Ah, I see what you’re saying. Yes, Crockford’s style is very rigid, very black and white. For the record, I agree with most of what he preaches. But he often declares things as “incorrect” or “a mistake” when they’re sometimes just curious or unexpected. They’re not always necessarily wrong, just maybe odd.

Actually I’ve been rewriting this particular article since I read his book JavaScript: The Good Parts. It’s now about three times as long and offers workarounds for when typeof is not helpful. Hopefully I’ll have that done soon.

]]> By: Phil M http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/comment-page-1/#comment-36 Phil M Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:36:18 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=29#comment-36 Sorry I worded that badly. I meant a typo is a mistake. I'm trying to say that its a bit unfair to just call these things mistakes when a they're more like debatable decisions by the spec writers. I agree the ambiguity isn't great. Function being typeof "function" is a strange one. Perhaps this should be "object" too. We have instanceof for determining exactly what object something is. Sorry I worded that badly. I meant a typo is a mistake. I’m trying to say that its a bit unfair to just call these things mistakes when a they’re more like debatable decisions by the spec writers. I agree the ambiguity isn’t great. Function being typeof “function” is a strange one. Perhaps this should be “object” too. We have instanceof for determining exactly what object something is.

]]> By: Matt Hackett http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Matt Hackett Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:54:35 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=29#comment-34 Well typos are still mistakes right? And the problem with using "object" for arrays is that almost everything in JavaScript is an object. typeof array being "object" is bad for the same reason that typeof function being "function" is good. Ambiguity is not helpful. Well typos are still mistakes right? And the problem with using “object” for arrays is that almost everything in JavaScript is an object. typeof array being “object” is bad for the same reason that typeof function being “function” is good. Ambiguity is not helpful.

]]> By: Phil M http://scriptnode.com/article/what-to-expect-from-typeof/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Phil M Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:55:55 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=29#comment-30 An array is an object. So object should be expected for this. I think Crockfords wrong to call this a mistake. Although a function is an object too, the spec (ecma262) makes a special case for functions. The spec states null should be typeof "object". Not exactly sure why though. Perhaps because its a null reference, which would point to an object if it wasn't null. That might sound a bit weak, but again, I'm sure there is logical reasoning for this and its not a "mistake", like a typo or something. An array is an object. So object should be expected for this. I think Crockfords wrong to call this a mistake. Although a function is an object too, the spec (ecma262) makes a special case for functions.

The spec states null should be typeof “object”. Not exactly sure why though. Perhaps because its a null reference, which would point to an object if it wasn’t null. That might sound a bit weak, but again, I’m sure there is logical reasoning for this and its not a “mistake”, like a typo or something.

]]>