Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get different
>> results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up the example code).
>>
>> For HTML5, this behaviour has been defined in more detail. The global
>> object is a Window object. This object is per-Document. The object
>> returned by the "window" attribute on that global object is actually a
>> WindowProxy object, which forwards everything to the "current" Window
>> object.
>>
>> What do you mean by "current"? Are you proposing to legitimize the
>> dynamic scoping behavior demonstrated by your example?
>
> What Ian showed is not dynamic scoping.
>
> var global = this;
> function g() { return global.x; }
>
> The issue is what global.x means after the current page (the one
> containing the script including these two lines) has been unloaded and a
> new page loaded (while some other window keeps a reference to g).
Whatever is specified should not prevent an implementation from throwing
an exception (ReferenceError would be most appropriate) in this case.
I disagree, strongly, with the position attributed by Ian Hickson to
"Mozilla, Apple, and Opera" that this option should be excluded on
performance grounds; I think that position has no sound technical
justification.
--
David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
