On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Brandon Benvie <[email protected]> wrote: > I must admit, I'm a bit confused. My understanding of 1JS was that it meant > no new modes or pragmas. That seems to have little bearing on whether a > feature is restricted to strict mode or not, because that ship has already > sailed and the cost is sunk. > > Aside from 1JS is, I think, a different discussion about what belongs in > strict mode, and what the cost is of putting a feature in strict mode vs. > making it available in normal mode. Generally, the cost of making something > available in normal mode is greater compatibility hurdles (as we see with > function decls in block scope), while the cost of putting things in strict > mode is in increasing the gap in semantics between code that is otherwise > identical besides the leading "use strict" pragma. > > Perhaps the second part is part of the 1JS discussion, but I think the > discussion already seen today indicates there is two separate issues, one > which is settled and agreed upon and one which is ongoing.
Agreed. I had not meant to imply that I was reopening the earlier issue. Perhaps I had misunderstood the meaning of 1JS. But I don't much care what we call it. I just hope we can stop sacrificing other values for the sake of sloppy mode. > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 > > -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
