On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark S. Miller skrev: >> >> So use strict mode; that's the kind of thing it's for. > > Sure, but as I said, there will always be those who find that > unsuitable, or who find that it breaks the old code that they > must work with. It's very undesirable that the non-strict mode > become bad quality. > > And failing silently here is very bad quality.
Strict mode is there to provide those quality-supporting rules that are not sufficiently compatible to propose for the non-strict language. You propose to throw an error for a case that is currently silent *both* according to the ES3 spec and by all browser behaviors. Any behavior where the ES3 spec and all browsers currently agree is likely to be legacy we can't break. We have considered making some breaking changes conditional on version opt-in rather than strictness-opt-in. But in all cases, it is to support additional functionality (lexically nested named functions, new keywords, both of which are technically compatible within the language of ES3). If you want to propose turning off old functionality for the sake of quality, or to turn silent failures into noisy ones, again, that's what strict mode is for. -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
