On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:05 AM, Andy Wingo wrote: > Hi again, > > Please excuse my ignorance, but:
No problem, we did not talk about how opt-in works. > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 07:41 -0800, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> To quote Waldemar from >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2010-October/011972.html >> >> "It's a judgment call, and I'd take these on a case-by-case basis. >> For const and let, I see little harm in browsers allowing them now in >> strict mode with the purely non-hoisting (C++-like) scoping rules, >> particularly if they complained when you accidentally declared a >> variable twice directly in the same block." > > So the current idea is that ES.next has different syntax and semantics, > and so in general the strategy would be to offer <script type="harmony"> > and otherwise some form of "transpilation". Right ("harmony" is a placeholder, the likely minimum but not best form would be type="application/ecmascript;version=6"). > But you are also proposing to move some ES.next features into the > existing ES5.1 strict mode already provided by implementations? No. Rather, Harmony (which is opt-in per above) is based on ES5 strict. Compiling from ES.next to ES5 is doable but it may not match the "transpiling" (ugly word) definition. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
