On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Hannes Wallnoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 14, 4:33 pm, "Peter Michaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Hannes Wallnoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > 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. > > Yes, that is what I'll do for now, even though ES 3.0 as well as the > 3.1 draft say the following in section 2 - Conformance: > > "A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to support > program and regular expression syntax not described in this > specification. In particular, a conforming implementation of > ECMAScript is permitted to support program syntax that makes use of > the "future reserved words" listed in 7.5.3 of this specification."
Then what is the point of "reserving" them? :-) Peter _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
