What would a 1JS-friendly strict mode look like?
Felipe Nascimento de Moura
felipenmoura at gmail.com
Thu Dec 18 10:44:07 PST 2014
ok, makes sense!
The fact that this works at the compile time, really makes it impossible to
modify from scope to scope!
It was just a suggestion, syntax or the way it could be implemented was not
supposed to be exactly like that...but I think it might be interesting if
we had some of the advantages/possibilities mentioned, like safe mode,
debug or (specially)experimental...or the supports for new features in the
My concern here, is about future evolution on languages, browsers and
It could be a string like "use strict, experimental"...could even be an
Anyways, I believe it might be something useful to think about :)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Till Schneidereit <
till at tillschneidereit.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Felipe Nascimento de Moura <
> felipenmoura at gmail.com> wrote:
>> did anyone see my suggestion?
>> (actually, am not sure my e-mails are going out!)
>> Personally(again, my opinion), I think it is at least weird, having a
>> "floating string" on your code! Specially because(by now) this is the only
>> situation, with only one option, what makes it an "exception".
>> ES has so many great patterns, the least exceptions for the rules, the
>> That's why I thought about a "scope" token/accessor.
>> Besides that, some advantages such as enabling experimental features or
>> not, safe mode, etc.
>> When I think about it, new ideas come!
>> Let's say you may use:
>> scope.set("debug", ["error", "call");
> Strict mode is a static, compile-time setting, not something that can be
> modified at runtime. Hence, your suggestion falls short, because it would
> be a runtime setting.
> the reason why a "floating string" was used is to not introduce syntax
> that older engines would trip over. Something like `use strict` (without
> the quotes) would cause that. You might say that `scope.set` would only be
> allowed at compile time or something, but that would be problematic both
> because it's not backwards-compatible (what if code uses a collection
> called "scope"?) and because it's not distinguishable from normal code.
> Also, "use strict" has been around for years and nothing will ever get it
> removed/replaced, anymore.
>> and this would cause any function call inside this scope, to stop(if a
>> console is opened) pausing the flow for debugging, or also, when any error
>> occur inside it.
>> Other things could be done to log calls, as well(changing the verbosity
>> of the scope).
>> Sorry if this idea is stupid and I can't see it! hehe
*Felipe N. Moura*
Senior Web Developer
Twitter: @felipenmoura <http://twitter.com/felipenmoura>
Meet some of my projects:
BrazilJS Conference <http://braziljs.com.br/> | BrazilJS Foundation
<http://braziljs.org> | Power Polygon
<http://github.com/braziljs/power-polygon> | TheWebMind
<http://thewebmind.org/> | PHPDevBar
*Changing the world* is the least I expect from myself!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss