Mark Miller wrote:
There, Boris writes:
> Conceptually, using the global of the realm of the function involved
> (i.e. the Chrome/Firefox/IE10 behavior) makes sense to me.
Me too. This is in keeping with the spirit of lexical scoping. It is
as if these built-in functions have lexically captured the global of
the realm of their creation, and use that. Besides "throw", any other
answer would be too much magic and (at least) hard to explain. Also,
this aligns with the global capture of sloppy functions.
This is how it was back in the beginning. Function objects each had a
"parent" internal slot referencing their global.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
