ES4 draft: Namespace

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Wed Mar 5 23:46:20 PST 2008


On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:37 PM, Michael Daumling wrote:

> I can only speak for ExtendScript. E4X was implemented according to
> ECMA-357 2nd edition, and it is tested using the SpiderMonkey test
> suite. Unfortunately, the ECMA Web site does not offer any errata
> documents, so I am not aware of their existence. So there is hope that
> ExtendScript is compatible with SpiderMonkey re E4X :-)

The tests are good but coverage is what you should expect from hand- 
written unit/basic-functional tests, plus regression tests. We've  
found and fixed stuff that was clearly not anticipated by the spec  
authors (including the ability to make cyclic XML structures), and  
hairier edge-case by fuzz-testing.

> Are there any plans to revisit and update ECMA-357? E4X has shown  
> to be
> extremely useful as such.

After ES4. See also

http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php? 
id=clarification:type_system#relax-ng_types

/be




More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list