On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2014, at 17:05, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Because of compatibility constraints, JS history can generally proceed > only in an additive manner, which means a steady degradation of quality > along the "simplicity" dimension. An opt-in mode switch is the only way to > escape that dynamic. Strict mode is the only one we've got, and the only > one we're likely to have in the foreseeable future. Strict mode should not > accept octal literals. Regarding sloppy mode, it continues to exist only > for the sake of legacy compat, so adding more crap to it for better web > compat is the right tradeoff -- as long as the crap stays quarantined > within sloppy mode. > > My point was that the crap under discussion is already available in strict > mode in existing implementations (except for the one in > Firefox/SpiderMonkey). It’s just not demonstrated yet if The Web depends on > this functionality in strict mode too. (It not working in Firefox is an > indication that it may not, sure.) > Yes, the FF situation seems an adequate demonstration. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5 Aug 2014, at 17:05, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Strict mode should not accept octal literals. > > The literals under discussion (e.g. `08` and `09`) are not octal literals. > Strict mode should reject these even more vehemently! (Allen, can we have an early vehement error?) -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
