E-S4L N-S4L
> On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:13 PM, "Matthew Robb" <[email protected]> wrote: > > But if the goal is for everything going forward to use the scope environment > characteristics of modules (strict-mode and local-global) then why not > specify that and move the old model to a legacy mode. This just shifts all > existing implementations to be compliant with legacy mode but not yet > compliant with the new mode. This should be fine it's mostly about how to > view and focus efforts when writing the spec, adding features, using new > features, and teaching the language. > > > - Matthew Robb > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Matthew Robb <[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) >> sense. Modules >> (https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-modules) are >> strict-by-default. >> >>> To me the more graceful path forward is the one where the world as people >>> know it stays the same but then there is an opt-in path for moving to the >>> supersets of the future. Yes!... If your saying do something similar as " use strict"; for module. Like "use module"; than yes I agree with this. >> >> Unnecessary when nothing about the future directly changes the extant works >> of the past. >> >> >> Rick >> >>> Dong this once after having considered many of the issues of the old model >>> seems reasonable to me specially with the amount of buy in people are doing >>> on transpilers and even buy in on other languages/runtimes such as dart. >>> >>> >>> >>> - Matthew Robb >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Matthew Robb wrote: >>>>> I don't see why they have to? Traceur should be used as a build time tool >>>>> that ultimately runs in legacy mode. Only REAL modern ES6 module >>>>> implementations would run in this other world. Basically .es files today >>>>> would be transpiled into .js files. >>>> >>>> I doubt people will do any such thing. We can have more suffixes (I was >>>> against .js2 in particular -- that particularly confusing proposal was why >>>> I unleashed the Nope-topus), but if people can adapt their existing >>>> practices with AMD/Require/CommonJS modules and use just .js, I bet they >>>> will. >>>> >>>> Tools will have to read metadata, tea-leaves, and etheric winds to keep >>>> up. Same as ever. >>>> >>>> /be >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
