Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Brendan Eich<bren...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> This doesn't mean strict mode failed. It does mean no-mo'-modes.
Except for modules? (As they definitely require a mode switch
(<module> instead of<script>). Perhaps at a higher-level than
JavaScript, but that seems immaterial.)
That's not a "mode" or "mode switch". A mode is a cross-cutting change
of state, both compile- and run-time. New syntax having new static
(compile-time) semantics doesn't make a mode in the sense everyone
decries when asking for no-mo-modes.
It's true hanging too much static-only modality on new syntax can make
"micro-modes", especially if the effects apply to a wider part of the
grammar than just the bit of new syntax. This was used to argue against,
e.g., new syntax in one parameter of a function's parameter list
changing the semantics of the whole function.
While "mode" is not well-defined, you know it when you smell it.
Stricter strict mode smells. That's the point here.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
