"no strict"; directive

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 12:37:56 PST 2012


I believe with is much more problematic than caller for all Engines out
there. A reference to "who is invoking" cannot be that bad ... is it?
Anyway, even C and C++ can be compiled "insecurely" so my hope was that for
some extreme, well explained, documented, and needed code, the "no strict"
directve would have been allowed. Engines are easily switching already
between strict and no strict so I don't see, today, this problem at all,
included performance since as I have said, the web is running already "no
strict" thanks to minification.

br


On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>wrote:

> On 15 November 2012 21:20, Andrea Giammarchi
> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > thanks for your contribution to this thread, appreciated. I'd like a
> proper
> > answer now if that is possible.
>
> You already got rather strong answers from two members of TC39. It's
> safe to assume that the rest feels similar. To be clear: it's not only
> not planned, but it would happen only over the dead body of half of
> the committee. There were reasons why strict mode started ruling out
> 'caller' and 'with' in the first place.
>
> /Andreas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121115/09e5b20d/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list