ES6 doesn't need opt-in

Brendan Eich brendan at
Wed Jan 4 12:30:11 PST 2012

On Jan 4, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:

> On 3 January 2012 21:01, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>>> On 3 January 2012 07:21, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
>>>> The top level is hard. The only way to be sure is to use pure lexical scope (in Dave's proposal, use module {...}).
>>> Ah, but wrapping into modules is incompatible with having multiple
>>> script parts.
>> I don't know what you mean. "Incompatible" in the sense that you cannot transform multiple scripts into multiple anonymous modules?
> Yes.

That's a feature, in the proposal. You want the old behavior? Use <script> without |use module;| or |module {...}|. There's your backward compatibility :-P.

>>> For multi-part scripts we need a way to switch the
>>> _proper_ top-level into extended mode. Or should I not be able to
>>> write (the relevant bits of) a multi-part script in extended mode at
>>> all?
>> The proposal may have been unclear on this point: the top level would allow as much new syntax and semantics as can be tolerated backwards-compatibly. The hard cases are let, lexical scope in the free-variables-are-errors sense Dave described (extant globals at start of module body are imported), and any runtime shifts we want (completion reform, typeof null).
> I suspect there may be other subtle issues, e.g., what about `const'

Not supported by IE, ever -- no intersection semantics (unlike block-contained functions).

> and local functions? [I see, Allen mentioned that already.]

Right. Oh, the pain! Still I don't want to fall back to versioning if these are one of a few hard cases.

> In any case, even if we allow more features in classic mode

Don't think of modes and you'll be grooving with the new proposal better ;-).

> that
> still doesn't give you the ability to use _all_ Harmony features for
> multi-part scripts. I think we need a proper story for this.

Agreed, but this desire is best satisfied by markup, e.g. that <meta> tag idea we've alluded to throughout this thread. Saying you want this doesn't undermine the new-syntax-as-opt-in proposal.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list