On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > 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.
This is an example of the micro-modes issue. If optional, rest, and/or destructuring needs to enforce no duplicates, then we have two choices: 1) Make these features available only in strict code, which doesn't require any new special case -- since strict already bans duplicate parameter names. 2) Make a micro-mode, adding yet additional mode switching in order to supposedly avoid the complexity of dealing with one mode switch. By our previous criteria, #1 is obviously simpler than #2. > > So what exactly are you referring to here, in the way of a live proposal? > > /be -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss