Newly revised Section 10 for ES3.1.

Waldemar Horwat waldemar at
Thu Jul 10 18:01:07 PDT 2008

Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <Allen.Wirfs-Brock at> wrote:
>>>> FWIW, this sort of thing is a reason that I'm pretty concerned about
>> ES3.1 getting into an advanced specification state without the benefit
>> of any in-browser implementation.
>> You need to have an advance specification state before you can meaningfully test it in an implementation.
> Sure, there's an interdependency, but it seems like you wouldn't want
> to propose something for inclusion into a short-turn spec like ES3.1
> unless you'd seen it run _somewhere_ relevant, no?  Is there a
> document somewhere that tracks which ES3.1 features have been
> implemented in what prototype engine?

The key criterion here is whether you can come up with a language that makes sense.  None of the existing behaviors make sense because they would make 'function' hoist differently from 'const' hoist differently from declaring other kinds of things in ES4, etc., with the only way of fixing it being introducing yet more ways of declaring things.  The net result would be gratuitously hostile to everyone in the long term.


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list