Subj : Re: Another JS question
To   : Sterling Bates
From : Brendan Eich
Date : Wed May 05 2004 12:22 pm

Sterling Bates wrote:
> "Brendan Eich" <brendan@meer.net> wrote in message
> news:409882B9.1060103@meer.net...
> 
>>Sterling Bates wrote:
>>
>>>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".
> 
> 
> OK, how about this:
> 
> "If v is null or undefined, JS_ValueToObject assigns NULL to *objp and
> returns JS_TRUE. This is a known difference between SpiderMonkey and the
> ECMA 262-3 specification. However, since this API predates the ECMA spec,
> the process is maintained for compatibility purposes."

I would not use "process" to describe this API.  The sentence starting 
with "However" uses passive voice, which should be avoided.  How about 
just saying:

"This is a known difference from the ECMA-262 specification (see Section 
9.9), which is maintained for backward API compatibility (the JS API 
predates ECMA-262)"

/be

.