4 ms·

Another fun typeof quirk that the table leaves out: Regular Expressions, depending on the V8 or Nitro engine version, are implemented to return either 'object'

by yahelc 14y ago

Another fun typeof quirk that the table leaves out: Regular Expressions, depending on the V8 or Nitro engine version, are implemented to return either 'object' or 'function' http://bonsaiden.github.com/JavaScript-Garden/#types.typeof http://bonsaiden.github.com/JavaScript-Garden/#types.typeof Recent versions of V8 and Nitro return 'object' now, but presumably, there are many people still running browsers that return 'function'. Seems like it relies on whether or not the RegExp is callable, but that the 2 engines removed 'function' as they ceased supporting callable RegExes. http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=617 http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=617

firefoxman1 14y ago
I often use the improved typeof function: http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/fixing-the-javascript-typeof-operator/ http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/fixing-the-... Question: why is the way to determine null considered "very bad"? It works and seems like a valid way, since both empty objects and arrays are truthy, null is the only falsy "object" type.
- sjs 14y ago
  I think it's only bad because it would break with future changes to typeof. Of course I may be completely wrong on that. This works just as well and is more future proof though: function isNull(x) { return x === null } At which point you don't really need a function at all. Perhaps the version using typeof is from a time when there was no === operator. Was that pre-ES3? I think so but am not certain.
  - firefoxman1 14y ago
    Oh yeah, of course. There's no need when you can just do === null.
  - krisk 14y ago
    "I think it's only bad because it would break with future changes to typeof" You're completely right. The proposal (http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:typeof http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:typeof) suggests the change of typeof null to actually return "null"; however, as Douglas Crockford points out, "existing code cannot anticipate the change". Additionally, Brendan Eich states that "neither this proposal nor the bug fixes in that proposal are backward-compatible".

by yahelc 14y ago

firefoxman1 14y ago

I often use the improved typeof function: http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/fixing-the-javascript-typeof-operator/ http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/fixing-the-... Question: why is the way to determine null considered "very bad"? It works and seems like a valid way, since both empty objects and arrays are truthy, null is the only falsy "object" type.

sjs 14y ago
I think it's only bad because it would break with future changes to typeof. Of course I may be completely wrong on that. This works just as well and is more future proof though: function isNull(x) { return x === null } At which point you don't really need a function at all. Perhaps the version using typeof is from a time when there was no === operator. Was that pre-ES3? I think so but am not certain.
- firefoxman1 14y ago
  Oh yeah, of course. There's no need when you can just do === null.
- krisk 14y ago
  "I think it's only bad because it would break with future changes to typeof" You're completely right. The proposal (http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:typeof http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:typeof) suggests the change of typeof null to actually return "null"; however, as Douglas Crockford points out, "existing code cannot anticipate the change". Additionally, Brendan Eich states that "neither this proposal nor the bug fixes in that proposal are backward-compatible".