On Oct 24, 12:59 pm, Ash Berlin <
ash...@...> wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2009, at 20:20, VK wrote:
>
>
>
> > Having a statement such as:
>
> > var obj = {
> > foo: 'bar',
> > default: 'default_value'
> > }
>
> > Firefox 3.5.3 creates obj with properties foo and default.
>
> > IE reports syntax error "Expected identifier, string or number", same
> > or similar syntax error occurs on Safari, Chrome and Opera. By placing
> > default into quotes we are making the code valid for all browsers in
> > question:
>
> > var obj = {
> > foo: 'bar',
> > 'default': 'default_value'
> > }
>
> > My question is if it is a Gecko bug, a convenience extension or the
> > proper implementation by ECMA with others being wrong on that?
Not a bug, yes a convenience, and proper implementation of ES5 (after
ES3.1 and ES4, which both allowed reserved words to be used in
property-name contexts). Also a proper extension to ES3, which allows
such syntactic extensions (see chapter 16).
IE has yet to ship the ES5 JScript implementation I've seen demo'ed at
Ecma TC39 meetings.
> This is a spidermonkey 'bug' in the default is in the list of future
> reserved words by the ES262 (ECMAScript 3) spec.
No, 'default' is not future-reserved in ES2 or ES3 -- it's used in
switch statements.
/be
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
dev-tech-js-engine@...
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
