@Brendan I'm aware of that pattern. For now, I'm more concerned about the option of modules. It would be nice to import the standard library features you need, and if, for some reason, one of the API natives get overwritten, you have a fallback. On Sep 22, 2014 1:18 PM, "Brendan Eich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> OnMon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Domenic Denicola >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>> Of Isiah Meadows >>> >>>> >> I know this would break a lot of backwards compatibility >>>> completely, so this is purely hypothetical, and I expect this to not have a >>>> realistic chance anytime soon. >>>> >>> > >>> > Anything that breaks backward compatibility will not have a chance, >>> realistic or otherwise,*ever*. >>> >> >> To square this with Matthew's response, the original idea was to >> *also* expose the core functionality as modules, to give you the >> ability to grab "clean" versions of any standard functions you wanted, >> while the preexisting global versions would still be there. >> > > Right! > > Isaih, this is good news: you can't insist on removing stuff, but if you > put the cleanups and better organization in new clothes, the old drab ones > will fade into disuse (even if they don't ever go away). > > This is kind of a "law of the Web." It turns out compat does break, and no > one notices (much), over very long timeframes. At least, we saw this going > from the early Web to the modern days, with a few things (corner cases in > JS and CSS table layout). But these were never predictable, or major. > > With strict-by-default modules, we can hope for 'with' to whither away > over a decade. I wouldn't bet on it, since strict mode is still opt-in and > will be for <script>, forever. > > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
