On 02/25/11 13:26, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 2/25/11 4:08 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I would tend to be more in favor of disallowing Harmony features in
non-strict code (without explicit use strict directive) to avoid
surprises (I'm nuancing below).
On Mar 3, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
If we're saying that Harmony is strict-only, settable by a script tag, what
will indirect eval and the Function constructor do if the evaluated code
doesn't start with a use strict directive?
Yeah, strict-only is probably not quite the
On Mar 3, 2011, at 6:55 PM, David Herman wrote:
So I think it might be a little misleading to say Harmony is strict-only.
Who ever said that? :-P
I've written that Harmony is based on ES5 strict. But even ES5 strict code can
call non-strict code. Same goes for Harmony. It's a big shared-heap
So I think it might be a little misleading to say Harmony is strict-only.
Who ever said that? :-P
Yikes... not playing who-said-what. For whatever reason, Waldemar got the
impression that someone said it, and I'm correcting the misconception, that's
all.
I've written that Harmony is based
Hi,
I have once seen a presentation from Douglas Crockford where he was
saying that new ECMAScript features would be developed on top of ES
strict mode (sorry for not having the exact quote, I hope I'm not
misinterpreting). I have re-read that Harmony is a super-set of ES5
strict (https
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:36 AM, David Bruant bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr wrote:
Does it mean that the use strict directive is implicit whenever an
ESHarmony feature is used? (this sounds wrong, but I'm asing the question
anyway)
It means that the semantics of Harmony are based on ES5-strict,
On Feb 25, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Mike Shaver wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:36 AM, David Bruant bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr
wrote:
Does it mean that the use strict directive is implicit whenever an
ESHarmony feature is used? (this sounds wrong, but I'm asing the question
anyway)
It means
On Feb 25, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
As far as the presence of new, detectible properties such as Proxy, no opt-in
is needed and non-strict code can detect such additions. With modules you'll
have to opt in, but proxies at least we prototyped as JSON and other
additions were
On 2/25/11 4:08 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I would tend to be more in favor of disallowing Harmony features in
non-strict code (without explicit use strict directive) to avoid
surprises (I'm nuancing below).
I was under the impression that Harmony features would only be allowed
for scripts that
On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 2/25/11 4:08 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I would tend to be more in favor of disallowing Harmony features in
non-strict code (without explicit use strict directive) to avoid
surprises (I'm nuancing below).
I was under the impression that
On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 2/25/11 4:08 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I would tend to be more in favor of disallowing Harmony features in
non-strict code (without explicit use strict directive) to avoid
surprises (I'm nuancing below).
I was under the impression that
11 matches
Mail list logo
