Proposal: Modify automatic semicolon insertion in strict mode

Neil Mix nmix at pandora.com
Tue Dec 9 10:01:26 PST 2008


On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:00 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:

>> Why impose unnecessary work on someone trying to use strict?
>
> I repeat, not even checking that code still parses after adding
> "use strict;" is obviously silly, and we should not claim that strict
> mode is usable without doing that -- whether or not it does semicolon
> insertion. In other words, the work is necessary.


It's more than just making sure the file parses correctly -- it's  
adding the semicolons too.  Are you assuming that most programs will  
parse correctly without semicolon insertion?

Foo.prototype.bar = function() {
   //...
} // <-- whoops, no semicolon

For me that qualifies as "unnecessary work," aka "pedantic."  YMMV.

I don't think it's right to ask "what are the reasons someone wouldn't  
migrate to strict mode?"  Non-migration is the de-facto "winning"  
position.  The real question is, "why would someone bother to  
migrate?"  If you have fully functional code, why spend *any* time  
modifying it, introducing risk, while delaying other work?  This lies  
at the heart of Brendan's concerns about migration tax.  *Any* tax is  
going to inhibit migration.



More information about the Es-discuss mailing list