Doubt as much as you want, it's a fact:
^^>> >> That would depend on what one understands "classes" and "JS" to be,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>> > JScript, JavaScript, etc.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We'll see.
I think we've already seen, haven't we?
Is it? Perhaps you mean the implementation itself?
Not at all. I am pointing out the flaw in your overgeneralization.
I think you are wasting time.
*You* have defined "JS" to be a synonym for "ECMAScript implementations"
when referring to "JS" having no classes; ActionScript is one of them, and
it certainly has classes.
So you see the error of your way?
No.
Since you are asking, all sections of the proposal for ECMAScript Edition4,
of which JScript 7.0+ and other languages are implementations of (despite
the fact that it never became a standard to date).
See above. It's a non-starter.
But that is beside the point. A number of sections in ECMAScript Edition 3
and 5 talk about _instances_, which was what I was referring to.
As mentioned, those specification are aimed at *implementors*, just as
the DOM specifications are aimed at *browser developers*. Do you
understand that they necessarily use terminology that may not
translate well to discussions among Web developers?
You may want to check on the use of either term.
What does that mean? Function is a constructor function.
"Function object" is used with two meanings. This is to be avoided.
Exactly. That's why I don't use it to describe two different things.
Further, you cannot reasonably use "constructor" where there is no
constructor, but still an inheritance-related name-based relationship
between one object and another.
I don't know what you mean by "there is no constructor" when we are
clearly talking about the Function identifier, which refers to a
constructor function.
I did. I'm still right.
Stomping your foot will not help you to be convincing.
Implying that because you are not convinced does not mean that others
aren't.
"General parlance" does not consist only of the part that you or the
uninitiated accept of it.
I don't know what that means either.
We have constructors, prototypes, native objects,
built-in objects, host objects, variable objects, activation objects, global
objects, aso.
Yes, those terms translate well as there is no ambiguity. And there
is but one Global Object.
None of those would "translate well" to whatever imagined
"general parlance" you are talking about.
Certainly they do.
For example, the DOM specifications [...]
… are entirely irrelevant in this case.
Your motion is denied, counselor.
