If we can get uglify and closure compiler to reject it it will go a long way toward making sure it doesn't crop up in the wild. On Mar 14, 2014 10:20 PM, "Brendan Eich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter van der Zee wrote: > >> >> Which browsers currently don't accept this construct? I wasn't even aware >> that JSC didn't support it at some point. >> >> > Did anyone say JSC lacked support? I think KJS followed ES3, and this was > in the ES1 grammar, so I doubt it was never supported. > > Minifiers might rely on this construct. And perhaps some js1k entries, if >> that matters anything. >> >> > Extremely doubtful. It doesn't save anything. A minifier cannot count on > the loop iterating 0 times. > > Why is there a desire for banishment anyways? Only lack of consistency >> compared to not using the var keyword, >> >> > This is only about the 'var' case. The initialiser in 'for (var x = y in > z)' is due only to reuse of the wrong grammar nonterminal in ES1, based on > JScript de-facto non-standard behavior. It is a wart and a pain to > implement. We don't expect it to be hard to remove, unlike other warts, but > we'll find out. > > or was there a bigger problem with this? The thread comes out of the blue >> to me so I probably missed a prior discussion :) >> >> > ES6 revised the old grammar dating from ES1, breaking for(var x = y in z). > That was intentional and discussed in past meetings and threads. > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
