On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Hannes Wallnoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 13 Nov., 16:16, "Peter Michaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The ES3.1 proposed document, which is down to almost just typo fixes >> apparently, still has the future reserved words in section 7.5.3. >> There is a note they will add "const", "let" and "yield". So I won't >> be using any of those words for identifiers as there is inherent risk >> for the future (although if they are adding to the list then there is >> risk with other identifiers anyway.) >> >> It would be nice to be able to do >> >> foo.class >> >> without a problem. I know Douglas Crockford thought that should be >> acceptable. I don't know if the ES3.1 document allows this. > > I find it interesting that ES3.1 still has basically the same future > reserved keywords list as ES3, given the general disregard in JS > browser engines. I guess I should ask on es3.x-discuss list on why > this is so. Maybe it would be better to leave default setting for > future reserved keywords as disallowed, but apply the rest of the > patch, i.e. remove the warning message if allowed and handle "import" > and "export" as future reserved keywords as defined in the ES spec.
Apply the patch but having it dissallowed by default sounds like a good idea to me. Peter _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
