`with` revisited and related to object extension literals
tj at crowdersoftware.com
Fri Jun 1 10:19:05 PDT 2012
On 1 June 2012 18:02, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:
> I just take issue with the over-broad analogy to `with`. The problem with
> `with` is that it's statically undecidable whether any variable in the body
> is bound by the object or by something else in the scope chain.
Yeah, at least, it is with JS's current `with`.
> And I apologize for reacting so strongly. It's just that `with` is
> anathema to many JS developers (for good reason!), and it's an easy smear
> that gets used loosely to disregard proposals or even ES6 writ large.
Yes, sorry, I was _very_ slow to pick up on that connotation (I don't share
a negative view of `with` as a _concept_; I agree about the issues with
JS's old/current `with` and never use it because of them). The penny
finally dropped when I was replying later to Brendan. Talk about causing
Anyway, all clear now, and thanks again for listening!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss