Sure, sounds good. I will look into it. Thanks, /Andreas
On 14 May 2011 03:18, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this is the kind of incremental refinement of the details of > existing features that we can legitimately consider after May without > setting a bad precedent. Would you be interested in turning these ideas into > a strawman for, say, the July meeting? > Unless there's a problem with this approach I'm not noticing, I think it > would be a welcome cleanup of a messy part of the language -- conditioned on > an ES-next opt in of course. > > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On 13 May 2011 01:50, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Assume that >> >> >> >> - we distinguish two variants of the eval function, strict and >> >> non-strict -- let's call these values EVAL_s and EVAL_ns. >> >> - initially (in global scope), the identifier `eval' is bound to >> >> EVAL_ns. >> >> - in a strict mode scope it will be considered rebound to EVAL_s >> >> instead (unless it has already been shadowed by user code anyway). >> >> >> >> (In addition, at least in strict mode, the only calls to `eval' that >> >> are considered _direct_ calls would be those where `eval' statically >> >> refers to the initial binding or one of the implicit strict-mode >> >> rebindings -- i.e., where it has not been shadowed by the user.) >> > >> > I think the core insight here is good, and had it been made in time, >> > could >> > have led to a better semantics than what we adopted into ES5. I like the >> > idea that ' "use strict";' effectively inserts a >> > DeclarativeEnvironmentRecord binding 'eval' to EVAL_s, though I'd put >> > this >> > record on the stack at the strict/non-strict boundary rather than just >> > above >> > the global object. >> >> Yes, my previous description of "shadowing" `eval' at the point of >> "use strict" was meant to describe just that. >> >> > Even better, since 'eval' cannot be rebound by ES5/strict, ES-next, or >> > SES >> > code, and since "eval(str)" is effectively a special form anyway, why >> > not >> > remove the dynamic "and if 'eval' is bound to the original global eval >> > function" condition from direct eval? Why not just treat "eval(str)" as >> > a >> > direct eval special form independent of what 'eval' is bound to in that >> > scope? >> >> That's what I tried to suggest in the parenthesized paragraph above, >> and it was the reason for my question to Allan. >> >> The difficulty in ES5 would be that scoping is not really static -- >> not even in strict-mode code, which might still be surrounded by >> non-script scopes shadowing `eval' dynamically (esp `with'). But for >> Harmony it'd be nice. >> >> Thanks, >> /Andreas > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
