"use strict" VS setTimeout

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Sun Sep 7 10:47:12 PDT 2014

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Mathias Bynens <mathiasb at opera.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This looks like a potential problem when possible passed methods are not
> > bound + it looks inconsistent with *"use strict"* expectations.

Yes. This looks like a typical screwup. Thanks for pointing it out.

> It’s not just `setTimeout` – other DOM timer methods have the same
> behavior. The spec is here, FWIW:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/webappapis.html#dom-windowtimers-settimeout
> Pretty sure this cannot be changed without breaking the Web.

Why? If "undefined" were passed instead, sloppy callback functions would
still see the same behavior -- on entry they would coerce undefined to
their global object. Do you think the web already depends on strict
functions seeing the global object here, rather than undefined?

> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140907/05add46b/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list