a future caller alternative ?

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Tue Mar 12 08:04:51 PDT 2013


Hi David, you remember correctly. Thanks!


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:31 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 11/03/2013 22:51, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
>  the outer `with` statement ... you see my point? we are dropping powerful
>> features in order to make JavaScript the toy we all think is since ever
>>
> A while ago I discussed the 'with' trick on es-discuss (I don't remember
> when, it was a message about dynamic loaders IIRC) and I think Mark's reply
> was that it was a "temporary" (ES5 era) hack and the proper ES6 way would
> be to use a custom loader (using the a custom 'global' property).
> In that instance, "with" isn't a powerful feature, it's a convenience used
> so that the relevant sandboxing code is 6 lines instead of a full parser,
> because if there was no "with", that's probably what Caja would be doing
> anyway.
>
> David
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130312/abaef9a3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list