On May 27, 2012, at 5:13 PM, John J Barton wrote: > ... > The reason I asked is that "use strict" seems to be a subset but acts > like another version in some cases. In particular, if a library uses > obj.freeze() and the caller modifies the object by adding a property, > the caller gets no error message. (You'll have to read the source of > the library to figure it out.) The library is, for this purpose, > operating in a language where object modification is an error but the > caller is not.
A don't follow your logic. "Freezing" is independent of strict mode. It is a characteristic of the object model, not the source code "mode". What is determined by strict mode is what happens when code for that mode tries to modify a frozen object. It can either cause an exception (strict mode) or for be silently ignored (non-strict mode). If the library writer thinks that freezing will always cause exceptions, then they don't understand either strict mode or what Object.freeze actually does. I would generally have higher expectations for library writers. First rule of strict mode: "use strict" only affects code that is lexically within the scope of the directive. It has no global effect. > > If 'mashing up' is similar to 'using objects from a library', then > isn't JS-mashed-with-SES (whatever that means) a different version of > JS? Yes...no...when passing object into any library you need to be aware of the library's expectations for those objects. It should be part of the documented interface contract for the library. strict/non-strict, SES or plain old JS, garbage in usually results in garbage out Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
