Not so pretty but:
import * as global from “@global”;
Or some bindings:
import {Promise} from “@global”;
From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark
Miller
Sent: April 17, 2015 11:53 AM
To: Glen Huang
Cc: Mark S. Miller; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Putting `global` reference in specs
This is one of several cases where, post ES6, we can provide a std module
import that provides a built-in that carries authority. Another example is the
constructor for making weak references, which necessarily provide the ability
to read a covert channel. As with shadowable globals, this module import must
be easy to virtualize. We purposely postponed this along with the Loader and
Realm API as it is security sensitive and we don't yet have enough usage
experience with modules to know how to design this separation well.
In particular, we rejected the obvious Reflect.global as it bundles the global
together with authority-free safe things, which makes virtualization of the
global alone needlessly unpleasant.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Glen Huang
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You guys are talking about referencing the global object in modules right?
Since in scripts you can reliably get hold of the global object by using "this"
in the root scope.
And es 2015 made an explicit choice to clobber "this" in the root scope of a
module, I guess that means module code really isn't supposed to get hold of the
global object?
On Apr 17, 2015, at 11:34 PM, Mark S. Miller
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I almost omitted it, but one should never need to encounter or think about
sloppy code unless absolutely necessary. For my brain, adding the "use strict";
makes this snippet of code much simpler.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Andreas Rossberg
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 17 April 2015 at 17:27, Mark S. Miller
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
(1,eval)('"use strict"; this')
Is the 'use strict' relevant here? Seems overkill.
/Andreas
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
there's actually no way, officially, to reference what ES2015 call *the global
object*, just pointless fragmentation between engines.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Anne van Kesteren
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> So I'd say we should not have `self` (if stays on global and Worker I don't
> actually care) and add a `global` that nobody needs explanation to
> understand what it is in JavaScript
Indeed, three ways to reference the global object is not nearly enough.
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
