How to modify the scope chain without `with` ?

[Benjamin Gruenbaum]

For what it's worth very popular templating libraries like KnockoutJS use `woth` heavily.

I think the consensus is that writing DSLs should be done as a transformation into JavaScript (like JSX) and not inside JavaScript (like Knockout and your library)

The dynamic nature of `with` is why it is forbidden in strict mode, when import/export land in browsers things will run in strict mode by default which means `with` is gone. 



> On 15 Feb 2016, at 11:13, Coroutines <coroutines at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This post might be overly wordy.  Sorry.  It relates to the
> functionality provided by the `with` keyword and why I think it's
> important in the future.
> 
> I am currently rewriting a templating module that I think is very
> useful for it's ability to turn a function in coffeescript syntax into
> a sort of DSL - something that looks like this:
> 
> template = ->
>  doctype 5
>  html ->
>    head ->
>      title @title
>    body ->
>      div id: 'content', ->
>        if @posts?
>          for p in @posts
>            div class: 'post', ->
>              p p.name
>              div p.comment
>      form method: 'post', ->
>        ul ->
>          li -> input name: 'name'
>          li -> textarea name: 'comment'
>          li -> input type: 'submit'
> 
> For those not familiar with Coffeescript, "= ->" creates a function
> with no arguments, the indented sub-block is the body of the function.
> 
> All of these things essentially compile into nested functions like:
> html(head(title(this.title))
> 
> (not an exact translation)
> 
> Anyway, this library/module called (ck) exploits the little-used
> `with` keyword.  It creates a function like this:
> 
> function (scope, template) { with (scope) { template(); } }
> 
> So the template is just a series of functions that lookup within
> `scope` for a function creating HTML.  The problem is this module
> (imo) wastefully creates a lot of closures to create the HTML tags.
> 
> It was my plan to create a Proxy object to use like: with (proxy) {
> ... } - so html() called within that `with` block would redirect
> through the proxy to something like: makeTag('html', children...)
> 
> This does not work.  Proxies as objects provided to `with` does not
> work.  I don't know if this is intended but I'm disappointed.  `with`
> itself is a keyword discouraged from use (it seems).
> 
> I am from Lua, where in Lua we have 2 variables called _ENV and _G.
> In Javascript terms _G would point to `global` in node (the main
> execution context/object).  _ENV has no direct mapping to JS - it
> would be the current context/object, which might not be _G anymore.
> 
> I wish it were possible to create objects that functions could run
> within - you can seemingly only do this with the outmoded `with` or
> with the 'vm' module in Node.  People seem to discourage `with` and it
> (iirc) is ignored in strict mode - and you can't use the `vm` module
> in the browser.
> 
> I think there is a need for the ability to do this in ES7, and I wish
> it were as simple as assigning an object to _ENV to change the
> environment the function dereferences/resolves through.
> 
> Am I crazy or is this a good idea?  The MDN posting on the `with`
> keyword says you should just create a short reference to make use of
> things - like: ck.p("this is a paragraph"); - but then this isn't as
> natural as exploiting the context of what the function is running in
> for the above `template` function.  Again - I am NOT talking about how
> `this` is defined but the outer scope/object.  I wish scope lookup
> were as simple as following a prototype chain.  I wish I could easily
> create a scope to run in from an object.
> 
> Would this be something useful - or is `with` just not in style
> anymore?  (I'm still mad I can't use a Proxy in with):
> 
>  require('harmony-reflect');
> 
>  let f = function() {
>    cats('abc');
>    dogs('123');
>    thisshouldjustlog('damnit');
>  };
> 
>  let tmp = new Proxy({}, {
>    get: function() {
>      return console.log;
>    }
>  });
> 
>  // disappointment abound
>  with (tmp) { f() };
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160215/7aad1309/attachment.html>