**implicitly fail** from a user point of view that used "use strict" to avoid receiving the global context in there ... I am not sure how much you want to turn it back to me but you are missing the point and I've not much else to say.
Regards On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Domenic Denicola < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 7, 2014, at 19:54, "Andrea Giammarchi" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > But here I go back to the utopia I've already mentioned on putting > everyone together to fix this, and I'm fine if it won't change but it's > good to know that "use strict" could implicitly fail when the DOM is > involved. > > > To be clear, "use strict" is not failing; it's not like the DOM APIs are > doing anything against the JS spec. That is, I wouldn't say that `function > f(g) { g.call({}); }` makes "use strict" fail. > > As for knowing that sometimes DOM APIs call passed-in functions with a > thisArg, you should probably already be used to that from addEventListener. > > > Regards > > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Domenic Denicola < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't understand why this is any more surprising than any other >> function that calls its callback with .call(something). It doesn't matter >> whether the callback is strict or not; .call(window), which is what the >> spec does, will override it. >> >> As far as I can see this issue has absolutely nothing to do with strict >> vs. sloppy. >> ------------------------------ >> From: Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> >> Sent: 2014-09-07 19:14 >> To: Mark Miller <[email protected]> >> Cc: Mark S. Miller <[email protected]>; es-discuss list >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: "use strict" VS setTimeout >> >> It feels to me also a vector that will happily pass all linters and >> code analyzers giving users a door to reach native context and start >> playing in there with everything else. I'm pretty sure you would agree on >> this too :) >> >> Please let us know if there's any follow up, it's probably >> easier/faster if some googler mention this issue to other googlers that are >> collaborating with WHATWG or W3C or both (or none) >> >> Thanks >> >> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes Axel, that's how it works, this will show undefined indeed all over >>>> >>>> ```js >>>> (function () { >>>> 'use strict'; >>>> function g() { >>>> console.log(this); >>>> } >>>> g(); // undefined >>>> setTimeout(function () { >>>> g(); // undefined >>>> }, 0); >>>> }()); >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> or testing other use strict restrictions: >>>> >>>> ```js >>>> (function () { >>>> 'use strict'; >>>> setTimeout(function () { >>>> argument.callee >>>> }, 0); >>>> }()); >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> The strict behavior is preserved, it's not an opt-out, but the >>>> invoked function within setTimeout has the global context regardless it has >>>> been defined under the strict directive + regardless it defines itself as >>>> strict. >>>> >>>> Basically if you feel secure about "use strict" here you have a case >>>> that shows you shouldn't ... making one point of strict directive kinda >>>> broken/pointless. >>>> >>> >>> Agreed. I would remove only "kinda" from that statement ;). >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sep 7, 2014, at 19:47 , Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Andrea Giammarchi >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > This looks like a potential problem when possible passed methods >>>>>> are not >>>>>> > bound + it looks inconsistent with *"use strict"* expectations. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. This looks like a typical screwup. Thanks for pointing it out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. Follow-up question: isn’t strictness propagated >>>>> lexically? That is, shouldn’t the parameter of `setTimeout()` be strict >>>>> even without being explicitly declared as such? >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Cheers, >>> --MarkM >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
