"no strict"; directive

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 11:59:05 PST 2012


gotcha about eval ... but indeed eval makes things slower in any case,
right?


On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:

> my typo ... I am NOT talking about callee, I am talking about caller which
> is NOT a misfeature specially when it comes to debug and stack trace.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder if there is any plan to allow a chunk of code to disable for
>> its own closure purpose a previously called "use strict"; directive.
>> >
>> > This is about the ability to use, when not possible otherwise, some
>> good old feature such caller which is impossible to replicate when use
>> strict is in place.
>> >
>> > I am talking about arguments.callee, I am talking about caller.
>>
>> arguments.callee and .caller are not good features.
>>
>> Being able to access your caller is a misfeature.
>>
>> arguments.callee is simply unnecessary.
>>
>> Also having the ability to lose strict semantics at arbitrary locations
>> in the middle of other strict modes makes things even slower, and adds all
>> sorts of weird semantic behaviours (eg. what would eval('"no strict"; var
>> x;') do? -- this is hypothetical, just given as a trivial example of where
>> things go weird)
>>
>> --Oliver
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121115/3a36dd19/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list