waldron.rick at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 10:54:40 PST 2011
Mark, It was coined by Remy Sharp
...I still don't understand how it differs from "shim"
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Xavier MONTILLET <
> xavierm02.net at gmail.com> wrote:
>> use version 6;
>> and not
>> "use version 6";
>> ? Just to be sure ES 6 code breaks in old browsers ?
>> And what do you mean by "opt-in for ES6" ? New syntax ? Everything in ES
>> 6 ?
>> I'm thinking about weakmaps:
>> - on the one hand, you want to use native weakmaps when available so
>> you would want to "opt-in for ES6"
>> - but on the other hand, you could also implement a weakmap "polyfill"
>> that wouldnt be as efficient, that would suck the memory but still
>> work, and have it work in older browsers
> is a WeakMap polyfill that should work *transparently* in all ES5
> conformant browsers. It is indeed not as efficient, but it's better than
> you might expect ;).
> Btw, where does the term "polyfill" come from?
>> Therefore, setting the thing to do to "opt-in for ES6" to something
>> not backward compatible doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I did start a related thread a while ago .
>> > Brendan's response  explained a few things:
>> > "Please read RFC 4329:
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4329
>> > There will be *at least* a ;version=6 parameter you can use, probably
>> > argued that we should align version numbers."
>> > "Beyond the RFC 4329 version= parameter, we also want a pragma for
>> > in-script-content version assertion:
>> > use version 6;"
>> > See the full response  for full context.
>> > Besides an es-discuss thread, I think that what is really needed is an
>> > harmony proposal. How to opt-in for ES6 is outside of the scope of pure
>> > ECMAScript (especially if it's with playing with the HTML script tag
>> > @type attribute), but let's face it, web devs need this information and
>> > a wiki page on the topic would be handy.
>> > At the time of reading Brendan's response, I didn't have anything to add
>> > syntax features. Syntax features that are NOT backward compatible with
>> > ES3. If you use one of these features, your script break in older
>> > browsers (unlike new HTML elements and CSS rules).
>> > I don't see an alternative to versionning. Smarter people are welcome to
>> > jump in, I guess.
>> > David
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Le 19/12/2011 11:49, Peter van der Zee a écrit :
>> >> ``use version 6;``
>> >> In which thread on esdiscuss should I have read about that?
>> >> - peter
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss