Addition of a global namespace function?

Brendan Eich brendan at
Fri Dec 4 14:13:46 PST 2009

On Dec 4, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Alex Russell wrote:

> me:  the problem is that people can still omit var
> you: everyone will run it through a verifier
> me: programmers are still human, particularly web developers. They  
> don't run verifiers. In general we still have the problem.0
> you: everyone will run it through a verifier
> me:  really? And if they're going to accept the constraint anyway,  
> wouldn't it be better if we just created a construct where the  
> default is changed?
> you: but everyone can just run it through a verifier!
> me:  um...
> Lawls.

Let's back up.

You and I know we can't incompatibly change the language. So "use  
strict" or better ("use lexical scope", or just the default in a  
future opt-in version based on the Harmony proposals) will be  
necessary to get the right non-default-but-built-into-browsers  
behavior, where free variables are static errors. Anything else is a  
new Web, e.g. Flash or Silverlight.

Unless you have a better idea?


More information about the es-discuss mailing list