2009/12/7 Kevin Curtis <[email protected]>:
> Alex Russell wrote:
>> Nope. I'm only suggesting that we need to get to "use better_thing" SRTL and
>> that ES5 strict mode doesn't fix the problem in an appreciable way for most
>> content. I expect we're in agreement.
>
> Re SRTL and the scope/timeframes for ES6.
>
> How about an ES6 which focuses on:
> - removing cruft-weirdness. e.g. global on the scope chain.
> - adding core runtime semantics which improve security, simplicity and
> speed. e.g "use lexical"/let, revised function, hermetic eval. And
> especially, first class support of modules without rewriting.
Agreed. The verifying/rewriting approach can help people roll out
applications with proper module support on legacy interpreters, but
the committee should investigate approaches that moot the rewriters.
> Sugar, decimal, operator overloading etc - all good things - can be
> ES7+. And build on a solid ES6 foundation.
One of the things that made ES5 meetings productive was a statement
about what was and was not ES5:
standardizing extensions and fixing quirks that are agreed upon by
a majority of the major interpreters
Can you phrase the ES6/7 distinction in similar terms?
> If an iterator protocol goes in ES6 maybe it could take the form:
> Object.defineIterator(o, function() {...});
> Same for catchalls:
> Object.defineCatchall(o, function() {...});
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
