ES3.1 questions and issues

Tobie Langel tobie.langel at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 06:04:32 PDT 2009


There's a huge benefit to specifying these keywords now: guaranteeing  
future compliance of ES 3.1 strict programs.

The cost, on the other hand is fairly small: pick a new variable or  
function name.

It's always harder to fix these issues in widely distributed programs.

Some of the challenges faced by the Prototype JavaScript Framework  
involve certain methods specified in ES 3.1 (notably the new  
Array.prototype methods) which were implemented in Prototype prior to  
their specification. Doing so causes significant backward- 
compatibility issues and is best avoided.

OT: For what it's worth, that is also why I would find it useful to  
specify an Object.prototype.toDebugString method for ES 3.1, even if  
the specification is loose. It would just prevent programs from  
accidentally shadowing it.

On Mar 18, 2009, at 05:39 , Mark Miller wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <Allen.Wirfs-Brock at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> * For the identifiers we are already confident will become  
>>> keywords as
>>> of ES-Harmony -- "const" and "let", perhaps "yield" and "lambda" --
>>> would it make sense to make these keywords now in strict code?



More information about the Es-discuss mailing list