Andreas Rossberg wrote:
I haven't replied to this thread yet, because I feel that I already
made all the same arguments repeatedly to no avail. ;) However, let
me reiterate one particular observation, which is that IMHO much of
the discussion (and decision making) around 1JS, modes, and opt-ins is
just mistargeted.
Could be, let's see.
Namely, it is primarily based on the expectations and needs of
_current_ users. Users that are aware of what's ES3 or 5 and who are
about to investigate what's new in ES6. To those users, design choices
like making new constructs opt into strict mode by default will not
seem a big deal, even natural.
Glad to hear some concurrence.
But that group will be irrelevant after a relatively short time of transition!
Who knows? "Relatively short time" will be measured in units of years,
though.
ES6+ will stay much longer (at least that's what we are working for).
Consequently, what should take precedence are the expectations and
needs of _future_ users of ES. Those who will come to ES6+ without
knowing nor caring about the colorful history of its earlier versions.
For them, having various features locally change the semantics of
unrelated constructs
Whoa.
Who ever proposed that? It seems a misunderstanding. No one is saying
that, e.g., destructuring formal parameters, or a rest parameter, should
flip the containing function into strict mode. Banning duplicate formals
in no wise does that.
So what exactly are you referring to here, in the way of a live proposal?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
