Jan 30 TC39 Meeting Notes

Angus Croll anguscroll at gmail.com
Mon Mar 11 15:32:07 PDT 2013


got it, thanks


On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>  I think this thread is the most recent discussion of the issue:
>
> http://esdiscuss.org/topic/1944
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org]
> on behalf of Angus Croll [anguscroll at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2013 17:08
> *To:* Rick Waldron
> *Cc:* TC39; es-discuss
> *Subject:* Re: Jan 30 TC39 Meeting Notes
>
>   No I more-or-less agree with your spiel.
> I'm unclear why the group considered let/const is an issue for sloppy mode.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Angus Croll <anguscroll at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for this Rick.
>>>
>>> From the minutes, I'm not getting the rationale for banishing let/const
>>> from sloppy mode.
>>>
>>
>>
>>  Are you specifically asking about my "big spiel"? I stated that
>> disallowing any new syntax (not just let/const) in non-strict mode would
>> result in stunted adoption and "too many rules" confusion. Despite my
>> belief that strict mode is the right mode, I also asserted that it's simply
>> unrealistic to think that new syntax is a big enough carrot.
>>
>>  Important to note that I'm not speaking for anyone that reads or
>> participates on this list.
>>
>>  Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130311/c258fb02/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list