The global object should not be the "global scope instance object"

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at
Fri Jan 27 00:06:31 PST 2012

On 26 January 2012 20:51, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
>Andreas Rossberg <mailto:rossberg at>
>> I still like the idea of cross-script shadowing (aka nested scopes),
>> but one concern was that it is not clear what names would be in scope
>> for, say, a piece of JS code in a random HTML attribute somewhere on
>> the page.
> We could say event handler attributes are scoped by the most-nested scope --
> the scope due to the last <script> element that was closed before the
> element with the event handler attribute was processed.

Why not the last (most-nested on page) scope?

> But it's worse than that. What about <script async src="..."> (or the
> HTML4-era, not fully supported on all browsers <scriptdefer src="...">?
> Async scripts are not supposed to have global effects other than defining
> functions that the page or app author ensures won't be called till after all
> content (or at least all scripts, or at least all of the needed async
> scripts) has finished loading. In what scope do async script let/const
> top-level bindings go?

I suppose they'd nest in the order they get loaded. There is no
escaping the fact that you'd still have a stateful notion of "current
toplevel scope" on a page that affects the meaning of later scripts,
attributes and such. But at worst later scripts can shadow bindings
from earlier ones, which does not accidentally affect those earlier
ones. Compare with the situation today, where later scripts may modify
the meaning of previous ones by accidentally overwriting their

If you don't want to forbid multiple bindings across scripts
altogether (Allen's proposal), then what other alternative is


More information about the es-discuss mailing list