also, take a break if you have time and enjoy this talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFtijdklZDo
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> funny, 'cause at least one use case I have implemented, is about improving
> performances at least 2X for 99% of OOP frameworks out there ... I guess
> you like function wrappers then to simulate caller when needed, right?
>
> Anyway, thanks ... I'd like to hear the same from some TC39 guy if you
> don't mind and you are not already otherwise I'll stop here.
>
> br
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> the debugger you mention is most likely using the with statement ...
>>
>>
>> No, the debugger is part of the virtual machine. I'm aware that the
>> WebKit inspector currently has a rather annoying bug wrt executing code in
>> strict mode, but that's a _bug_.
>>
>>
>> Can we just stick with the answer if it is planned or not? I don't want
>> to convince you that there are cases where non strict features are needed
>> ... it is just like that and many times already discussed.
>>
>>
>> Not planned.
>>
>> Again, is there any real reason to not consider a "no strict" directive?
>> The whole web is running no strict thanks to minifiers so I really would
>> like to listen to real reasons over already discussed academic debates.
>>
>>
>> Because it would complicate the language, the implementation, and have
>> negative performance consequences.
>>
>> --Oliver
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>>> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> my typo ... I am NOT talking about callee, I am talking about caller
>>> which is NOT a misfeature specially when it comes to debug and stack trace.
>>>
>>>
>>> The solution to debugging is to use a debugger, not to try and debug
>>> from within the language.
>>>
>>> All modern JS engines provide a) a debugger and b) stack traces on
>>> exceptions.
>>>
>>> Even if they weren't .caller is insufficient: it can't walk over strict,
>>> native, or global code that exists in the call stack, so at best you only
>>> get a crappy result.
>>>
>>> Like I said in my prior email: If you're willing to toss out the
>>> improvements of strict mode just to get arguments.caller, you may as well
>>> stop using it in the first place.
>>>
>>> --Oliver
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>>>> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I wonder if there is any plan to allow a chunk of code to disable for
>>>> its own closure purpose a previously called "use strict"; directive.
>>>> >
>>>> > This is about the ability to use, when not possible otherwise, some
>>>> good old feature such caller which is impossible to replicate when use
>>>> strict is in place.
>>>> >
>>>> > I am talking about arguments.callee, I am talking about caller.
>>>>
>>>> arguments.callee and .caller are not good features.
>>>>
>>>> Being able to access your caller is a misfeature.
>>>>
>>>> arguments.callee is simply unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> Also having the ability to lose strict semantics at arbitrary locations
>>>> in the middle of other strict modes makes things even slower, and adds all
>>>> sorts of weird semantic behaviours (eg. what would eval('"no strict"; var
>>>> x;') do? -- this is hypothetical, just given as a trivial example of where
>>>> things go weird)
>>>>
>>>> --Oliver
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
