Thanks for the pointer. It seems like the argument against it is security: if I pass you my arguments object, you now have access to the original function, which violates the POLA. Isn't the fact (pointed out by Allen in the original thread) that arguments.callee can be deleted a mitigating factor here?
Aren't there other fixes that would work as well (such as making arguments.callee only available lexically) without completely removing the feature. On a related topic, would you mind pointing me at the thread where the removal of with() was discussed? -- Yehuda On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Breton Slivka <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Breton Slivka <[email protected]> wrote: > > x > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Yehuda Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What I'd like to know is what the rationale for removing > arguments.callee > >> from strict mode is. Is it a performance problem? If so, have > implementors > >> tried other solutions at compile-time before agitating for the removal > of a > >> language feature? > >> The argument that this is simply a strict mode change falls flat when > we're > >> also told that Harmony will be built on ES5 strict mode. As far as I'm > >> concerned, anything missing in strict mode is effectively being removed > from > >> the language. > >> -- Yehuda > > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-March/008970.html > > > > > Apologies with the curt message. I seem to have suddenly lost my > ability to operate my computer competantly. > > I meant to say, that the rational has been discussed at length in the > past. Here's the link to the mailing list thread about it: > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-March/008970.html > -- Yehuda Katz Developer | Engine Yard (ph) 718.877.1325
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
