f() = x de facto standard
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Wed Aug 7 09:08:22 PDT 2013
Perhaps we could ban it in strict code specifically? This would also
include module and class bodies, allowing us to shed it over time without
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:01 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 07/08/2013 15:44, Peter van der Zee a écrit :
> To be honest, I was championing that parser writers should write flexible
>> and supportive parsers and put strict ocd parsing under a flag/option.
>> Especially in this case, where you need a parser that should be able to
>> parse content parsable by a number of other parsers (-> browsers), you want
>> your parser to be as accepting as possible or it's useless in those
>> I'm not saying "bring back `f()=x`" :) I don't see any point in that
> Aligning with reality is the point. A web standard is pointless if it
> doesn't describe reality. That's one of the reason the WHATWG was founded
> and one of the reason versioning is an anti-pattern on the web.
> Standards follow reality, not the other way around the vast majority of
> the time (unlike the common belief). Standards not following reality make
> themselves de facto obselete. That's why W3C HTML snapshots are a cute but
> useless idea (bugs in spec snapshot versions never get fixed by definition
> of a snapshot).
> Among other things, that's also the reason why getting implementation of
> native promises right the first time is important. If implementations
> diverge, the spec will have to be fixed and likely to something that isn't
> Anyway, if you're not saying "bring back `f()=x`" and if it is confirmed
> to be a de facto standard, then I am saying it :-) (and will add it to
> ECMAScript Regrets, because it's doesn't seem like something people should
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss