> So, case by case: > > * arrow function syntax (which does not imply "use strict" in body prologue) > * class > * const > * default parameters > * destructuring > * rest parameters > * generators (function*, yield in function* body) > * comprehensions > * generator expressions > * module > > all seem to work in 1JS via the "new syntax is its own opt-in" rule, > including any stricter/saner semantic checking. > > I left out 'let' and function-in-block. Let's set those aside for a moment. > > Anyone disagree that the bulleted syntactic extensions listed above should be > their own opt-in, and think instead that some or others or all should appear > only to strict code? (Mark, here's your chance! ;-)
Am I getting the following grouping right? I’d argue that all members of the second category usually have small bodies; having ES6 syntax only there might make things too fragmented. (1) opt-in for bodies: * class * default parameters * rest parameters * destructuring (parameters?) * generators (function*, yield in function* body) * module (2) opt-in for surrounding scope: * arrow function syntax (which does not imply "use strict" in body prologue) * const * comprehensions * generator expressions -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
