> From: Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> > To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> > Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <[email protected]>, Erik Arvidsson < [email protected]>, "[email protected] list" < [email protected]> > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:31:15 +0200 > Subject: Re: Throwing errors on mutating immutable bindings > On 2 October 2014 17:17, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > > I believe that the module champions have always wanted static unresolvablse reference rejection to be part of the module semantics. But we've never had actual specification for that semantics. > > Yes, I had always hoped for a "stricter mode" applied to modules. But > I don't think that's something that's still possible at this (or a > later) point. If it had been, then it would have made total sense for > it to check against const assignments as well, along with a number of > other things. > > > Personally, I think it would be fine for all of these sort of conditions to be specified as runtime errors and leave it to linters to find them early and JS implementations to optimize the runtime checks away.
More likely, they will be even more quickly optimized and potentially inlined as static constants. > > Outside modules, with the language being as it is, adding one minor > new static check definitely does not seem worth the trouble and the > cost risk. True, and I don't know of a decently fast ES3/5 parser. ES6 will be even more complicated, and thus, slower than an equivalence ES3/5 one > > /Andreas
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
