On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about those earlier options. I am
>> arguing only the latter. Specifically "Any ES6 features that don't fit
>> into non-strict mode without contortion, including "let" and nested
>> "function", should be available only in strict mode."
>
> Then I'm with Rick: your subject line was pretty inflammatory and not actually
> what you were arguing. This isn't a debate about 1JS. It's a narrower debate
> about whether some features should be available only in strict mode.
Just to clarify why I used that admittedly inflammatory title: When I
had previously argued this point, specifically regarding "let",
someone (I thought it was you) cited "1JS" as a reason to try bringing
such ES6 features to non-strict (sloppy) mode. If 1JS implies that we
should do so, then I reject the 1JS doctrine. If I misunderstood, then
I withdraw putting this in terms of 1JS.
I think you did coin "1JS". What do you mean by it? Does it bear on
the present issue or not?
[...]
> So I guess I'd like to sit back a bit and hear others' opinions about this.
> But let's be clear that we're only talking about excluding some new features
> from sloppy mode, *not* about the ES6 opt-in.
Agreed.
>
> Dave
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
