Subj : Re: Another JS question
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : Sterling Bates
Date : Tue May 04 2004 12:49 pm

Brendan Eich wrote:

> Yes, the ECMA spec came after the JS implementation that evolved into 
> SpiderMonkey, and one of the quirks of the JS_ValueToObject API is that 
> it treats null and undefined as objects, return NULL in *objp.
> 
> This should be called out in the API docs.  If people need it, we could 
> add a thin JS_ValueToNonNullObject.

Sounds good, how about adding this to the end of JS_ValueToObject's 
current description:

"If v is NULL or void, JS_ValueToObject assigns NULL to objp and returns 
JS_TRUE. This is a known departure from the ECMA 262-3 specification, 
which was written after SpiderMonkey. Developers who require ECMA 262-3 
compliance may raise the issue in n.p.m.jseng."

(Proper <C></C> notation excluded for readability.)

Just as a question: would it work if js_ValueToObject checked 
JSVERSION_IS_ECMA first, and was dynamically compliant vs traditional?

Sterling

.