excluding features from sloppy mode

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Thu Dec 27 00:24:24 PST 2012

Kevin Smith wrote:
>     It does not even contain the word "strict". IIRC (and I asked
>     about this at the last TC39 meeting and got verbal confirmation),
>     the idea of module {...} implying strict mode was latent, or
>     intended. I'm not sure about out of line modules.
>     At this point, best thing is to summon Dave.
> Since any new code will likely be written as a module (even in the 
> near-term, transpiled back to ES5), this would be the ideal scenario.

Which "this" do you mean? modules (in or out of line) implying strict 
mode can target ES5 strict, no problem.

> But I'm trying to think through the implications while waiting.

One more thought from me, then I'll shut up for a bit:

Mark wants no "micro-modes" but really (and I appreciate his candor) 
wants no sloppy mode extension if possible. I see things differently but 
I've started coming down on the side of more implicit strictness: 
module, class, function*, perhaps we should revisit arrows. (Allen has 
to spec something in the way of poisoned or absent .caller, etc. on 
arrow function objects.)

IOW, I want more strict extensions too, but implicitly! Again, having to 
write "use strict"; itself makes for more sloppy code over time, but new 
syntax can be its own reward for the new semantics.

So I'm not convinced your slippery slope argument should prevail.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list