| function mapReviver(key, value) { | |
| if (typeof value != "object") return value; | |
| switch (value["<kind>"]){ | |
| case undefined: return value; | |
| case "Map": { | |
| let newValue = new Map; | |
| let mapData = value["<mapData>"]; | |
| if (!mapData) return value; | |
| mapData.forEach(e=>newValue.set(e[0], e[1])); | |
| return newValue; |
| Number.prototype.introspect = function() { | |
| "use strict"; //.See ES5.1 10.4.3 steps 1-3 | |
| if (typeof this == "object") return Object.prototype.introspect.call(this);//generic object mirror | |
| return new Float(+this); //Number value mirror | |
| }; |
This is a response to Git 1850768 For some reason the following wouldn't post as a comment
@mranney @piscisaureus
I did some experiments and I don't see any round-tripping issues showing up, at least in FF:
var z= "\ud83d\ude38"; //u+1f638
console.log("z.length: " + z.length); //expect 2
| //work in progress | |
| // A response to jashkenas's fine proposal for minimalist JavaScript classes. | |
| // and BrendanEich's Rich Corinthian Leather alternative proposal | |
| //intro and justifications still to come | |
| // Harmony always stipulated classes as sugar, so indeed we are keeping current | |
| // JavaScript prototype semantics, and classes would only add a syntactic form | |
| // that can desugar to ES5. This is mostly the same assumption that Jeremy |