Mark, you cite some issues we need to work through, but opt-in via
pragma syntax beyond "use strict" is not one of them.
What's more, the big-picture claim in your Subject line ("has failed"
especially) is not true. In an overriding sense, 1JS can't fail, because
versioning is an anti-pattern (or at best retrospective, not
prescriptive) on the web. To be more precise, ES6 will fail if it
requires opt-in versioning apart from the new syntax itself. This
applies to "use strict" too, since it has costs (both performance and
semantic changes that double testing while old browsers are in the field).
Now, on the specific JSC bug you cite,
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27226. This is actually from
2009, filed based on a misunderstanding of ES3 and not on any real-world
web content, and finally marked invalid in February. It is old news. The
comments from February do not prove that "[t]he 1JS experiment has
failed". And JSC design decisions are not authoritative over TC39 as a
whole -- rather, the reverse!.
Anyway, we can certainly make function-in-block ES6 semantics require
"use strict" opt-in, but that will both diminish the use-frequency of
function-in-block with sane and standard semantics, and as Andy Wingo
pointed out in the JSC bug, confuse users with two semantics for the
same syntax.
More in reply to Brian Terlson's thread.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
