On 1 January 2013 07:09, Mark Miller <erig...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> Mark S. Miller wrote: >> I'm pretty happy with Kevin's compromise. Here it is again: >> >> (1) No opt-in required for new syntax, except: >> (2) No breaking changes to sloppy mode, and >> (3) No grammar contortions (e.g. let) to support sloppy mode. And >> (4) All new syntax forms with code bodies are implicit strict. >> >> What do you say? > > My preference order: > > 1) > 1.a) To the extent clean and practical, new features are available only in > strict mode, > 1.b) Lexical f-i-b is available in sloppy mode as it is in ES6 strict, since > no browser will prohibit f-i-b syntax in sloppy mode. Better to have the > f-i-b sloppy semantics be aligned with the ES6 f-i-b strict semantics. > 1.c) modules (both inline and out) implicitly opt-in to strict mode. > 1.d) classes implicitly opt-in to strict mode. > 1.e) nothing else causes an implicit strict mode opt-in. > > 2) Like #1 but without #1.d (which I think of as Andreas' position)
Yes, although I'd even consider removing 1.c inline (matching your option 6 below). But what do you mean by "to the extent clean and practical"? In my humble opinion, only two options are really acceptable at all: either _all_ ES6 features work only in strict mode (my preference), or _all_ ES6 features work in both modes (how I interpret 1JS). Something in-between, i.e., deciding inclusion into sloppy mode on a by-feature basis, is a non-starter in terms of usability and observable complexity. That is, rather (5) than (4) below. > 3) Like #1, but #1.e is replaced with > 3.e) All code bodies within new function syntax is implicitly strict. I'd be strongly opposed to this (and Kevin's point (4) in general). > 4) Like #3, but #1.a is replaced with > 4.a) To the extent clean and practical, new features are available in sloppy > mode. > I take it this is essentially your position and Kevin's compromise position? > > 5) Where things stood at the end of the last TC39 meeting, where we were > violating the "clean" of #4.a to kludge things like "let", > non-duplicated-formals-sometimes, no-arguments-sometimes, weird scoping for > default argument expressions, etc, into sloppy mode. > > 6) Like #2 but without #1.c. Is this essentially Kevin's pre-compromise > position? _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
