On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I would think the advantage of running compile-time checks against the > global object is that it can catch errors that we currently use linters for: > > // OOPS - forgot this line! > // import { x } from "foo"; > > function someRareCase() { > x(); // Reference error? > } > > That's useful, but it comes at the price of treating the global object as if > it were a static thing, and not dynamic. From my point of view, though, a > dynamic global object is just how it goes with Javascript. I think this > kind of static checking should be left to linters, unless we are adopting a > policy of actively discouraging dynamism for the global object.
We could: 1. Give up on static checking of unbound variables in modules. 2. Take the global object off the scope chain in modules. 3. Adopt a compromise. We think static checking for unbound variables is valuable, and letting people write `console.log` without having to import anything is valuable. Thus, option 3. Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
