Hi,
On Friday 12 October 2012 13:30:57 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> I've also been thinking about adding the frozen global object to the
> snapshot, but I think that will not work. Qt changes the global object, for
> example by adding the qsTr() function, so freezing would have to happen
> after Qt is
Hi,
On Thursday 11 October 2012 17:36:55 Harri Porten wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Thomas McGuire wrote:
> > Could we maybe simple get rid of object freezing, and not freeze the
> > global object?
> > What would the consequences of that be, anything bad? I am the opinion
> > that if the user want
Hi,
On Friday 12 October 2012 12:16:26 aaron.kenn...@nokia.com wrote:
> On 11/10/2012, at 3:04 PM, ext Thomas McGuire wrote:
> > the QML engine "freezes" the global JS object. This is apparently(?) to
> > prevent accidental writes to the global object. For those who don't know,
> > the global obje
Hi,
On Friday 12 October 2012 10:17:20 Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Thursday 11. October 2012 16.04.04 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> > Could we maybe simple get rid of object freezing, and not freeze the
> > global object?
> > What would the consequences of that be, anything bad? I am the opinion
> > tha
Hi,
On 11/10/2012, at 3:04 PM, ext Thomas McGuire wrote:
> the QML engine "freezes" the global JS object. This is apparently(?) to
> prevent accidental writes to the global object. For those who don't know, the
> global object in JS provides objects and properties available in global
> scope,
On Oct 12, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Thursday 11. October 2012 16.04.04 Thomas McGuire wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the QML engine "freezes" the global JS object. This is apparently(?) to
>> prevent accidental writes to the global object. For those who don't know,
>> the global obje
On Thursday 11. October 2012 16.04.04 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the QML engine "freezes" the global JS object. This is apparently(?) to
> prevent accidental writes to the global object. For those who don't know,
> the global object in JS provides objects and properties available in
> global
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Thomas McGuire wrote:
> Could we maybe simple get rid of object freezing, and not freeze the global
> object?
> What would the consequences of that be, anything bad? I am the opinion that if
> the user wants to override the "console" object, let him. Maybe there were
> other r
Hi,
the QML engine "freezes" the global JS object. This is apparently(?) to
prevent accidental writes to the global object. For those who don't know, the
global object in JS provides objects and properties available in global scope,
such as "console" (for console.log) or "qsTr".
Now, it turned
