excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)
ecmascript at norbertlindenberg.com
Wed Dec 26 16:51:04 PST 2012
On Dec 26, 2012, at 15:35 , Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about those earlier options. I am
>>> arguing only the latter. Specifically "Any ES6 features that don't fit
>>> into non-strict mode without contortion, including "let" and nested
>>> "function", should be available only in strict mode."
>> Then I'm with Rick: your subject line was pretty inflammatory and not actually
>> what you were arguing. This isn't a debate about 1JS. It's a narrower debate
>> about whether some features should be available only in strict mode.
> Just to clarify why I used that admittedly inflammatory title: When I
> had previously argued this point, specifically regarding "let",
> someone (I thought it was you) cited "1JS" as a reason to try bringing
> such ES6 features to non-strict (sloppy) mode. If 1JS implies that we
> should do so, then I reject the 1JS doctrine. If I misunderstood, then
> I withdraw putting this in terms of 1JS.
> I think you did coin "1JS". What do you mean by it? Does it bear on
> the present issue or not?
Dave's original email:
For TC39 members, there's a nice presentation in the archive: Ecma/TC39/2012/005.
The basic idea was that, instead of versioning through MIME types or pragmas, programs would opt into ES6 semantics by using modules. There was nothing about making all ES6 features available in all contexts.
More information about the es-discuss