`with` revisited and related to object extension literals

T.J. Crowder 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
inadvertent offense.

Anyway, all clear now, and thanks again for listening!

-- T.J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120601/ad5362c2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list