Although document.all is also falsy and loosely equal to undefined, it is not undefined. The case of document.all having type “undefined” is classified in the web standards as a “willful violation” of the original ECMAScript standard for web compatibility.
Then the bastard tries to willingly access x to equate it to undefined, but that can’t work since x is undefined and yields a ReferenceError (rendering the third expression moot).
The monks answers of document.all is not applicable since document.all is a live set of data which can be nothing or everything.
Who even introduced document.all? I bet it was microsoft…
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Now I’d love to see a Perl monk comic!
this is the language we were given on the web, not the language we chose
The what?? Is it a condition?
I can’t test it right now but I would love to know. Is it true?
Seems to be so, see Exceptional behavior of document.all
No, it’s undefined
not strictly
typeof x === "undefined"is true.Then the bastard tries to willingly access
xto equate it toundefined, but that can’t work sincexis undefined and yields aReferenceError(rendering the third expression moot).The monks answers of document.all is not applicable since
document.allis a live set of data which can be nothing or everything.Who even introduced
document.all? I bet it was microsoft…