Subj : Re: Another JS question
To   : Sterling Bates
From : Brendan Eich
Date : Tue May 04 2004 11:59 pm

Sterling Bates wrote:
> 
> OK, based on that I have two possibilities.  The first is good if there is
> no contradiction between "conformance" and "depature from the spec" in this
> instance.  Otherwise, the second is probably better.
> 
> 1. If v is null or undefined, 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.

Can't depart ahead of the birth of the spec from which the API departed, 
so I would say "known difference".

> 
> 2. If v is null or undefined, JS_ValueToObject assigns NULL to *objp and
> returns JS_TRUE.

This leaves out the difference from ECMA that we wish to note.

/be

.