What is an Object Type(O)?

Juriy Zaytsev kangax at gmail.com
Sat Mar 7 11:32:15 PST 2009


On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> Your understand in your last paragraph is correct.
>
> In general, the term “type” used in the specification is referring  
> to the categorization of values defined in Section 8.  One of those  
> “types” is “object”. Functions are values of the object type.  The  
> section 5.2 definition of Type(x) is correct but perhaps should be  
> elaborated upon as: Type(x) is shorthand for “the type of x” where  
> possible types are those defined in Section 8 (ie, Undefined, Null,  
> Boolean, String, Number, Object, Reference, List, Completion,  
> Property Descriptor, Property Identifier, Lexical Environment, and  
> Environment Record).
>
> Note that there are very few cases where a value might be either one  
> of the “ECMAScript language types” (the first 6 types in the list  
> above) or one the “specification types” (the rest of them) so most  
> often Type(x) predicates in the specification is just choosing from  
> among the language types.

This explains it perfectly! Thank you.

>
> The actual coding of this test is obviously implementation dependent  
> and I’m not familiar with your specific implementation so I can’t  
> say whether or not the functions you showed are correct.

My initial test tries to rule out exactly all of the "ECMAScript  
language types" except an Object one - Undefined, Null, Boolean,  
String and Number. I think of these types as of "primitives",  
therefore `isPrimitive` function name : ) If a value passed to  
`Object.keys` is in a subset of these "language types", then my test  
should work properly. If, on the other hand, a value is one of the  
"specification types" - there will be false positives. From what I  
understand, I shouldn't worry about specification types, as none of  
them seem to be able to make its way as an argument of `Object.keys`.  
Am I correct?

>
>
> I’ll think about whether or not I can easily clarify this in the  
> specification.  I’ve always found to definition of Type(x) to be  
> obscure and hard to find.

That could be beneficial for other people having same doubts as I have  
had.

>
> Allen
>

-- 
Juriy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20090307/19b8c1b9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list