"use strict" VS setTimeout

Domenic Denicola domenic at domenicdenicola.com
Sun Sep 7 11:27:37 PDT 2014

I don't understand why this is any more surprising than any other function that calls its callback with .call(something). It doesn't matter whether the callback is strict or not; .call(window), which is what the spec does, will override it.

As far as I can see this issue has absolutely nothing to do with strict vs. sloppy.
From: Andrea Giammarchi<mailto:andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
Sent: ‎2014-‎09-‎07 19:14
To: Mark Miller<mailto:erights at gmail.com>
Cc: Mark S. Miller<mailto:erights at google.com>; es-discuss list<mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: "use strict" VS setTimeout

It feels to me also a vector that will happily pass all linters and code analyzers giving users a door to reach native context and start playing in there with everything else. I'm pretty sure you would agree on this too :)

Please let us know if there's any follow up, it's probably easier/faster if some googler mention this issue to other googlers that are collaborating with WHATWG or W3C or both (or none)


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com<mailto:erights at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com<mailto:andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>> wrote:
Yes Axel, that's how it works, this will show undefined indeed all over

(function () {
  'use strict';
  function g() {
  g(); // undefined
  setTimeout(function () {
    g(); // undefined
  }, 0);

or testing other use strict restrictions:

(function () {
  'use strict';
  setTimeout(function () {
  }, 0);

The strict behavior is preserved, it's not an opt-out, but the invoked function within setTimeout has the global context regardless it has been defined under the strict directive + regardless it defines itself as strict.

Basically if you feel secure about "use strict" here you have a case that shows you shouldn't ... making one point of strict directive kinda broken/pointless.

Agreed. I would remove only "kinda" from that statement ;).


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de<mailto:axel at rauschma.de>> wrote:
On Sep 7, 2014, at 19:47 , Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com<mailto:erights at google.com>> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Mathias Bynens <mathiasb at opera.com<mailto:mathiasb at opera.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
<andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com<mailto: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.

Interesting. Follow-up question: isn’t strictness propagated lexically? That is, shouldn’t the parameter of `setTimeout()` be strict even without being explicitly declared as such?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140907/6f2efbde/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list