« Bugzilla Issues Index
#476 — Is "ordinary ECMAScript object" redundant?
- bug_id:
476
- creation_ts:
2012-07-09 09:40:00 -0700
- short_desc:
Is "ordinary ECMAScript object" redundant?
- delta_ts:
2012-09-28 12:24:21 -0700
- product:
Draft for 6th Edition
- component:
editorial issue
- version:
Rev 9: July 8, 2012 Draft
- rep_platform:
All
- op_sys:
All
- bug_status:
RESOLVED
- resolution:
FIXED
- priority:
Normal
- bug_severity:
trivial
- everconfirmed:
true
- reporter:
Rick Waldron
- assigned_to:
Allen Wirfs-Brock
- cc:
waldron.rick
- commentid:
1213
- comment_count:
0
- who:
Rick Waldron
- bug_when:
2012-07-09 09:40:57 -0700
Given the definition of "ordinary object" in 4.3:
"object that has the default behaviour for the internal methods that must be supported by all ECMAScript objects."
Perhaps all extant occurrences of "ordinary ECMAScript object" should be simplified to "ordinary object"
- commentid:
1253
- comment_count:
1
- who:
Allen Wirfs-Brock
- bug_when:
2012-07-09 15:25:54 -0700
I only found one occurence to "ordinary ECMAScript object" and removed the ECMAScript
fixed in rev10 editor's draft
- commentid:
1712
- comment_count:
2
- who:
Allen Wirfs-Brock
- bug_when:
2012-09-28 12:24:21 -0700
fixed in rev10, Sept. 27 2012 draft