A few arrow function specification issues

Anton Kovalyov ml at kovalyov.net
Mon Apr 23 17:11:36 PDT 2012


My two cents. A little over a year ago, I went over our JavaScript code here at Disqus and made sure that 99% of it is in strict mode. This was definitely a code cleanup aiming at catching variable leaks and other small bugs.

-- 
Anton Kovalyov
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)


On Monday, April 23, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:

> As a day-to-day user who was not using strict until recently (stubborn other team member for the loss), I can say that moving to strict was much more a "cleanup" experience than a "mode" experience, with only a few small exceptions:
> 
> 1) Poison-pilling arguments.callee: some code on the internet (notably [1], but elsewhere too) uses this property.
> 
> 2) Throw on `delete`ing non-configurables: unlike the other throw-on-doing-something-bad, `delete`ing non-configurable properties was something we actually did on purpose. E.g. using it to clear an "entry" in a "map", whether or not that entry was ever filled. (Cf. [2].) We never tried writing to a non-writable property, because that would cause bugs, but `delete`ing a property that doesn't exist was a common pattern.
> 
> [1]: http://www.devthought.com/2011/12/22/a-string-is-not-an-error/
> [2]: https://github.com/cjohansen/Sinon.JS/commit/80c38bd3e4b8813ab74ef27a4db3646e4778e31c
> 
> ---
> 
> Otherwise, it was just cleanup: we got to get rid of our global detector (`setInterval(compareWindowPropertiesToLastTimeYouChecked(), 1000)`), never missed `with` or evil-`eval`, and due to a V8 bug never had boxed `this` in the first place. We're using it transparently throughout the codebase, in fact, due to using an XHR+`eval` module loader that can insert the `"use strict"` pragma before `eval`ing.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
> > bounces at mozilla.org (mailto:bounces at mozilla.org)] On Behalf Of David Herman
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 19:11
> > To: Brendan Eich
> > Cc: es-discuss
> > Subject: Re: A few arrow function specification issues
> > 
> > On Apr 23, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> > 
> > > Brendan Eich wrote:
> > > > Without arguments runtime semantic shifts, and with |this| lexical,
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > there aren't many strict mode changes left IIRC, and they are pretty edgy
> > edge cases.
> > > 
> > > True enough, but I hang tough on wanting arrows to imply strictness. I
> > may be wrong but the edge cases cited so far (global variable creation by
> > assignment, 'with', direct eval injecting 'var' into its dynamic scope)
> > along with this |this|-boxing one are underwhelming.
> > 
> > IMO, this decision hangs on whether we think strict mode can be thought
> > of as a "cleaning up" that will mostly just catch bugs, resulting in
> > failing faster but otherwise not changing program behavior significantly.
> > 
> > POSITION "CLEANUP": If it's just a cleanup, then it makes sense to
> > introduce strict mode in a bunch of places in the language. It'll catch
> > bugs, and for the most part people won't have to think to themselves "is
> > this strict code?"
> > 
> > POSITION "MODE": If it's something that is likely to change behavior in
> > meaningful ways other than failing faster, then it's something
> > programmers will have to be mindful of. In that case, having multiple
> > constructs that implicitly introduce strict mode imposes a burden on
> > programmers: they have to know which features are strict and which ones
> > aren't.
> > 
> > Every fiber of my being screams MODE. Brendan argues CLEANUP based on the
> > rationale that the non-error semantic changes of strict mode are unlikely
> > edge cases. This is the strongest argument against MODE. I can't prove it
> > wrong, but it's a risky bet. If it turns out to be the case that in
> > practice you need to keep track of whether you're in strict mode, then
> > weak programmers who don't know better will end up with a confusing mess,
> > and strong programmers will prophylactically make sure to put their
> > entire programs in strict mode rather than memorize which subset of
> > syntaxes opt in. Since strong programmers have the option to do that
> > anyway even without multiple implicit opt-ins, why take the risk?
> > 
> > Pascal^H^H^H^H^H^H Dave
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org (mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org)
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org (mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org)
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120423/c4e8052f/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list