"Add to the language" is not accurate. Octal is *already* supported by JS engines today, and again, AFAIK, it is required for web compatibility. Banishing octal to the non-normative Annex B, banning it from strict mode -- that does not remove octal from JS in reality. Given this, the shoe is rather on the other foot: strict-mode has one more drawback from the point of view of a non-trivial cohort of users (Node.js hackers who wrangle Unix permissions).
That's nice, but Node.js supports JS non-strict and people use it freely, including not quoting octal literals (the API works with string inputs too, so explicit parseInt is not required). The problem for CoffeeScript users can be solved quickly via 0o prefixing. The problem for JS users is also easy: don't use strict mode. Is this really what we want? What good have we done by banning octal in strict mode?
The only use case I'm citing here is Unix permission modes. That's enough. /be |
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
