On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock < [email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm very happy that Harmony itself will be a successor only to > ES5/strict. That said, I do expect such lexical declarations to be de facto > for non-strict code, so we should document as much agreement on their > semantics as we can get. Perhaps at < > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=conventions:recommendations_for_implementors > >? > > > > If it is going to be a de facto standard then it should be included in > Harmony. These days, Microsoft’s primary interest in contributing to web > standards development is to ensure interoperability of user written code > among browsers. We would much prefer that anything that is expected to be > universally implemented in an interoperable manner is included in an > official standard. I don’t think we have any real disagreement here other > than the possible perception that Harmony can only talk about strict mode > functionality. > Yes, I think we're in agreement here on everything substantive. The issue -- which I wouldn't even characterize as a disgreement yet ;) -- is simply one of spec naming and modularity. As long as we're agreed on semantics, I'm easy on these more cosmetic issues. And I would like to see these issues spec'ed. > > > Allen > > > > *From:* Mark S. Miller [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:56 PM > *To:* Allen Wirfs-Brock > *Cc:* [email protected]; es-discuss > > *Subject:* Re: global function declarations and predefined global > properties > > > > [+es-discuss] > > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, except that the ES5 spec. only defines what it defines…any > non-standard extenders are on their own when trying to leverage ES5 spec. > language so define their semantics. It may or may not fit some new use. > > > > Also, if you think that such non-strict lexical declaration are going to be > a de facto standard language feature than you should probably be campaigning > to add them to the Harmony standard. > > > > I'm very happy that Harmony itself will be a successor only to ES5/strict. > That said, I do expect such lexical declarations to be de facto for > non-strict code, so we should document as much agreement on their semantics > as we can get. Perhaps at < > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=conventions:recommendations_for_implementors > >? > > > > If you wanted to have lexically scoped declarations within with blocks, > why assume that they would add properties to the with object. Why shouldn’t > such declaration be defined in a declarative scope that is nested within the > with object scope? > > The conflict I was worried about is that both "with" and global scope use > object environment records, effectively treating the top level as if within > a > > "with (global) {...}" block. However, now that you raise it, we can > retroactively rationalize "with" as creating an object environment record > and nested within it a block-level declarative environment record < > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:block_scoped_bindings#common_semantics>. > By contrast, we explain global scope as just an object environment record. > This justifies adding block level global declarations to the global object > but not adding block level declarations to the with object. > > > > Great suggestion, thanks! > > > > > > *From:* Mark S. Miller [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:58 PM > > > *To:* Allen Wirfs-Brock > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: global function declarations and predefined global > properties > > > > AFAICT, the issue would also arise for "with" statements if the body of a > "with" statement could contain a definition which is not hoisted around the > "with". Although ES5 does not provide any such non-hoisted definitions, > neither does it prohibit them. Three such non-hoisted definitions are > expected in ES-next: "let", "const", and nested function definitions. Since > several browsers are expected to support these for ES5 non-strict code[*], > this issue will arise for "with" in these ES5 implementations. > > > > > > [*] < > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=conventions:recommendations_for_implementors > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
