On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> [...] > Here's an interesting compromise I consider perfectly reasonable. We don't > *mandate* any ES6 code features be available in ES6 non-strict mode. But we > don't prohibit them either. For any ES6 features that have no dependence on > mode, like destructuring, we mandate that they be present in strict code, > and we make them normative optional (the new Appendix B category) in > non-strict code. Implementors are free to implement them or not in > non-strict mode, but if they implement them, it must mean the same thing as > the mandated meaning in strict code. > Except for nested named function definitions, which already have bizarre de facto behaviors in non-strict code that no one can fix. Perhaps there are more such conflicts in legacy non-standard features? If so, we probably need to exempt them as well. -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
