The web seems unable to shed its past. In the absence of opt-in (either "use strict";, classes, or modules) legacy web code will probably be sloppy forever. In sloppy mode, you can probably use "with" forever as well.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Alex Kocharin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 07.08.2014, 18:51, "Mark S. Miller" <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Alex Kocharin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 07.08.2014, 09:49, "Mathias Bynens" <[email protected]>: > > On 7 Aug 2014, at 02:46, Bill Frantz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> ... > >>> In section 11.8.3 (Numeric Literals), the definition for > >>> `DecimalIntegerLiteral` should somehow be tweaked to match that of > >>> `DecimalDigits`, with the exception that if the first digit is `0` > and all > >>> other digits are octal digits (0-7) it must be treated as a legacy > octal > >>> literal. > >> So this horrible footgun, changing the value of a constant changes its > radix, is only lurking in sloppy mode. > > > > It affects strict mode code too in existing implementations: there you > go from not throwing on e.g. `0123456789` (which is not an octal literal > because of the `8` and `9`) to suddenly throwing a syntax error when the > value changes to `0` followed by only octal digits (as then it is an octal > literal). See my previous posts in this thread. > Throw if value is ambiguous (i.e. `052`), don't throw if value is > unambiguous (i.e. `05`, `082`). Looks good to me. > > It is not compiler job to prevent bad code style, it's what linters should > do. > > > It is partially the job of strict mode to prevent some egregiously > confusing constructs. There is a line to draw between what strict mode > prohibits and what linters warn about. But there's no one line statement of > principle that captures this. Strict mode prohibits "with" and some other > constructs that make it especially hard to reason about programs. > > > > Well, then the question is this. Is strict mode optional or mandatory to > use? Will a developer always have a choice not to use it? > > If it is optional like it is now, that's fine. > > But if it is going to become the only es mode in the future, it should be > extended as much as possible, leaving linting job to linters. Including > confusing "with", because it have its uses in template engines. > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
