Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Matthew Robb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I just think the idea of 1JS has already been compromised and
really what we have is a spec that supports two almost-entirely
different sets of expectations. The maintenance of keeping them of
equal priority seems like it will only get worse over time. The
`"use strict"` pragma is already sort of an opt-in to the new mode.
Only in non-strict Script
(https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-ecmascript-language-scripts-and-modules
<https://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-ecmascript-language-scripts-and-modules>)
sense. Modules
(https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-modules
<https://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-modules>)
are strict-by-default.
Right. 1JS has not been compromised, and it never meant there wouldn't
be new syntax with new semantics.
Matthew, if you want to use this kind of language, apply it to ES5 with
its "use strict"; prologue directive. The directive is a useless
expression in old browsers, and yet runtime semantics change in new.
No opt-in versioning, syntax is its own opt-in, was the 1JS insight. It
predated modules as only expressed via out-of-line (in a file, or an
archive member) bodies. This led to the current dilemma: new suffix or
metadata?
In no case is 1JS compromised in favor of version opt-in to use new
syntax. Otherwise we are off to the <script
type=application/ecmascript;version=2015> race.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
