Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [jslint] Re: several JSLint errors I can't understand

Expand Messages
  • Morgaut Alexandre Louis Marc
    I saw in previous posts kind of same assume request for some ssjs environment. I think it might be harder to assume mozilla or commonjs Than browser
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 7, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I saw in previous posts kind of same "assume" request for some ssjs
      environment.

      I think it might be harder to assume "mozilla" or "commonjs" Than
      "browser" and "rhino" Because Mozilla JavaScript has more commands,
      and CommonJS has more types whereas the lastest only have builtin
      objects and methods which CAN be declared to JSLint as globals.

      Mozilla JavaScript is a différent language version, as are
      ActionScript and JScript. All of them should support ecmascript
      specification which is what JSlint is testing

      Asking to JSlint to support the specificities of main JavaScript
      implentation could be a powerfull option, it just be a little more
      complicated.

      It looks like one of the goals of JSLint was to help writing safe and
      portable codes, which explain the limitation to ECMAScript.

      So what about choosing the version number of the implementation we
      want to assume (Well I could like it)

      But sure, I'd love assume "server" instead of "rhino"

      Alexandre

      From iPhone

      Le 7 janv. 2010 à 14:18, Ekrem Tomur <ekrem.tomur@...> a écrit :

      > Hi Harry,
      >
      > Thank you for your helpful thoughts. But since I am a tester on a
      > mozilla
      > extension project and those js code I am testing meant to run on
      > mozilla
      > javascript engine, I can not ask developers to use standard javascript
      > instead of mozilla one. I must test their code, I hope JSLint can
      > help me a
      > little bit.
      >
      > You are right, now I also think treating let and const as var is a
      > bad idea,
      > since they are not quiet similar and also should be tested as a way
      > they
      > should be tested. So I like Tom's idea, add an Mozilla option since
      > this is
      > also quiet popular version of JS. If that could be done I will happy
      > to
      > contribute.
      >
      > Br,
      > Äkräm
      >
      > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Harry Whitfield
      > <g7awz@...>wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > Äkräm,
      > >
      > > Instead of trying to modify JSLint to accept non-standard
      > JavaScript, you
      > > could consider altering the JavaScript code to make it conform to
      > the
      > > standard.
      > > That would be my preferred solution.
      > >
      > > Another possibility would be to pre-process the code to replace
      > "let" and
      > > "const" by "var". It would also be fairly easy to modify JSLint or
      > its file
      > > input code to do that.
      > > However, if I remember correctly, the semantics of "let" is not
      > quite the
      > > same as that of "var".
      > >
      > > Harry.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ekrem Tomur
      Can somebody send me well formatted version of jslint.js? I really do not want to waste my time on preprocessing since it is wrong and limited. I want to try
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 8, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Can somebody send me well formatted version of jslint.js? I really do not
        want to waste my time on preprocessing since it is wrong and limited. I want
        to try to implement Mozilla option myself, at least the part I needed. But
        that jslint.js version annoying me since it is hard to read and change.

        On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Morgaut Alexandre Louis Marc <
        morgaut@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > I saw in previous posts kind of same "assume" request for some ssjs
        > environment.
        >
        > I think it might be harder to assume "mozilla" or "commonjs" Than
        > "browser" and "rhino" Because Mozilla JavaScript has more commands,
        > and CommonJS has more types whereas the lastest only have builtin
        > objects and methods which CAN be declared to JSLint as globals.
        >
        > Mozilla JavaScript is a différent language version, as are
        > ActionScript and JScript. All of them should support ecmascript
        > specification which is what JSlint is testing
        >
        > Asking to JSlint to support the specificities of main JavaScript
        > implentation could be a powerfull option, it just be a little more
        > complicated.
        >
        > It looks like one of the goals of JSLint was to help writing safe and
        > portable codes, which explain the limitation to ECMAScript.
        >
        > So what about choosing the version number of the implementation we
        > want to assume (Well I could like it)
        >
        > But sure, I'd love assume "server" instead of "rhino"
        >
        > Alexandre
        >
        > From iPhone
        >
        > Le 7 janv. 2010 à 14:18, Ekrem Tomur <ekrem.tomur@...<ekrem.tomur%40gmail.com>>
        > a écrit :
        >
        >
        > > Hi Harry,
        > >
        > > Thank you for your helpful thoughts. But since I am a tester on a
        > > mozilla
        > > extension project and those js code I am testing meant to run on
        > > mozilla
        > > javascript engine, I can not ask developers to use standard javascript
        > > instead of mozilla one. I must test their code, I hope JSLint can
        > > help me a
        > > little bit.
        > >
        > > You are right, now I also think treating let and const as var is a
        > > bad idea,
        > > since they are not quiet similar and also should be tested as a way
        > > they
        > > should be tested. So I like Tom's idea, add an Mozilla option since
        > > this is
        > > also quiet popular version of JS. If that could be done I will happy
        > > to
        > > contribute.
        > >
        > > Br,
        > > Äkräm
        > >
        > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Harry Whitfield
        > > <g7awz@... <g7awz%40btinternet.com>>wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Äkräm,
        > > >
        > > > Instead of trying to modify JSLint to accept non-standard
        > > JavaScript, you
        > > > could consider altering the JavaScript code to make it conform to
        > > the
        > > > standard.
        > > > That would be my preferred solution.
        > > >
        > > > Another possibility would be to pre-process the code to replace
        > > "let" and
        > > > "const" by "var". It would also be fairly easy to modify JSLint or
        > > its file
        > > > input code to do that.
        > > > However, if I remember correctly, the semantics of "let" is not
        > > quite the
        > > > same as that of "var".
        > > >
        > > > Harry.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Douglas Crockford
        ... Read the instructions. http://www.jslint.com/lint.html
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 8, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, Ekrem Tomur <ekrem.tomur@...> wrote:
          >
          > Can somebody send me well formatted version of jslint.js? I really do not
          > want to waste my time on preprocessing since it is wrong and limited. I want
          > to try to implement Mozilla option myself, at least the part I needed. But
          > that jslint.js version annoying me since it is hard to read and change.


          Read the instructions. http://www.jslint.com/lint.html
        • Klemen Slavič
          Or try a code beautifier: http://jsbeautifier.org/ 2010/1/8 Douglas Crockford ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 8, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Or try a code beautifier:

            http://jsbeautifier.org/

            2010/1/8 Douglas Crockford <douglas@...>

            >
            >
            > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com <jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>, Ekrem
            > Tomur <ekrem.tomur@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Can somebody send me well formatted version of jslint.js? I really do not
            > > want to waste my time on preprocessing since it is wrong and limited. I
            > want
            > > to try to implement Mozilla option myself, at least the part I needed.
            > But
            > > that jslint.js version annoying me since it is hard to read and change.
            >
            > Read the instructions. http://www.jslint.com/lint.html
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Noah Sussman
            ... How about http://www.jslint.com/fulljslint.js
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 8, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Ekrem Tomur <ekrem.tomur@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > Can somebody send me well formatted version of jslint.js?

              How about

              http://www.jslint.com/fulljslint.js
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.