On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy Earnshaw wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Opt-in sounds like a better solution, if pragmas are to be >> entered into the specification then it could even become part of >> >> use strict; >> >> >> Your point applies here too, though. "use strict"; (did you forget >> the quotes) has meaning in ES5, no meaning before, and therefore >> not likely new meaning after ES5. >> >> >> I didn't forget the quotes :-) I remembered reading the proposal at >> harmony:pragmas, but I didn't check the harmony:proposals page to see what >> its fate had been. I was thinking that an ES6 use strict wouldn't need to >> retain compatibility with ES5 because of the differing syntax. Even still, >> you raise a good point, changing the meaning for ES6 might have been >> confusing. >> > > Did you mean to reply-all? Just checking. Oops. Still not used to replying to mailing lists. I did this a couple of times on other threads and didn't realise why everyone was saying almost the exact same things I said as if I'd not said them! > We do not plan to evolve "use strict". Nor do we plan to remove >> the quotes (we've considered that at >> >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/**doku.php?id=harmony:pragmas<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:pragmas>, >> deferred >> from >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/**doku.php?id=harmony:proposals<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proposals>-- >> note strikethrough). It's possible more pseudo-pragmas in quotes >> may be standardized but as noted: wicked fight, requiring lots of >> data and careful argumentation. >> >> >> I would really like to see this; the one-time evaluation of each operand >> could eliminate the need for temporary variables and the shorter, more >> readable code just sweetens the deal. However, I think if we're going to >> introduce more pseudo-pragmas, they should probably provide a significant >> change like Claude indicated, fixing typeof null and several other >> improvements (although I'm not sure I agree with all his ideas for a >> "perfect language" ;-)). >> > > I think he was making the point that "perfect" is not an option ("I am > able to make coffee from within my preferred browser"). > We almost certainly are not going to fork the language with a pragma, but > if we do it will be new syntax, to choke old browsers. Otherwise the > testing burden doubles (again; this happened with "use strict"; in ES5 due > to its runtime semantic changes). Yeah, I suppose it's not such a good idea forking the language at all.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
