On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Dave Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For what value of "global" should the "global" keyword be global? };->
>
> I interpreted Erik's point to be that the binding of `this' is not lexically
> scoped, so it would be useful to have a lexically scoped variable initially
> bound to the global object. IOW, if I write:
>
> global.print("blah blah blah")
>
> and the same refactoring:
>
> (function() {
> global.print("blah blah blah")
> })()
>
> continues to work the same.
Cool. Would there be a 'global' for each module (for some
interpretation of "module" but assuming each module has its own
separate top-level lexical scope, as appears to be the growing
concensus)?
> But there's no need for a special keyword or anything like that.
Would that really satisfy Erik's use case? He seemed to think that
doing, at the top level --
var global = this;
function foo() {
global.bar = 3;
}
is vulnerable to some ${person} going --
function foo() {
var global = /* something else */
global.bar = 3; /* now not the *real* global; system fails! */
}
?
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
