"use strict"; prepended blindly to scripts in the wild

Mike Samuel mikesamuel at gmail.com
Thu Sep 9 09:53:10 PDT 2010

2010/9/9 Dmitry Soshnikov <dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> > On 9/7/10 1:21 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> >> See, e.g., https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593963 -- but
>> >> this is not the first instance. Previously:
>> >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=579119.
>> >
>> > The latter wasn't blind.  It was just a site concatenating a bunch of
>> > third-party scripts together, and one of the third-party scripts (correctly)
>> > using strict....  So that one is totally Amazon's flub, imo.
>> Thanks -- this clarifies things, and makes me worry about more of the
>> same.
>> "Blind concatenation" is a feature as much as a bug in the history of JS.
>> Combined with script inline content moving out to src= URL-named convent, it
>> is how we end up with Unicode BOMs and <!-- pseudo-comments in the middle of
>> files.
> Currently, a site may normally concatenate 3rd-party libs with "use strict"
> at the global level. The technique is the same as with forgotten semicolon
> -- just to put an empty statement at the beginning of the end file.

A forgotten semicolon at the end of the first concatenated file can be
a problem though.

Consider the concatenation of
    (function () {
    (function () {

Independently loaded, you get a call to foo and a call to bar.
Concatenated, you get a call to foo and a TypeError complaining that
undefined is not a function.

So in both cases naive concatenation introduces subtle bugs by
changing the meaning of the first or lass statement in a compilation

> Thus the site's combined file won't be globally strict, however since a lib
> is tested before a production release (at least I hope so ;), then the lib's
> code should pass the strictness, and therefore, a "use strict" may be even
> removed from the lib's file. However, if not to remove, then an empty
> statement is enough.
> ;/*1st lib*/"use strict";eval = 10;/*2st lib*/"use
> strict";arguments=20;/*our code*/
> Dmitry.
>> /be
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

More information about the es-discuss mailing list