> As such I think our best bet is for server-side JS runtimes to use `self` or `window`.
I personally hope that would never happen, and you managed to over-engineer the simplest alignment requirement I could possibly think of ... indeed ... > We might as well move it into the set of terms like "realm" or "vat" or "environment" that are more abstract than real. a new term like realm will just create more fragmentation => https://xkcd.com/927/ + there's no such thing on server side, at least not the same there is on front end vat is at least semantic in this case since it means Value-Added Tax ... but I am back to previous point environment is confusing with `process.env` Let's avoid the introduction of more problems please ... I rather leave things as it is since we are unable to be pragmatic, no matter how straight forward is the solution. On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote: > One thing I'm surprised nobody has brought up yet is that "global" would > be an incorrect name in the case of browsers. The actual global object is > not (and must never be) directly accessible. Instead you get a window proxy > when you use `window`, `self`, `this`, etc. > > As such I think our best bet is for server-side JS runtimes to use `self` > or `window`. > > The latter isn't as crazy as it sounds: just start adding phrases to the > ES spec like "all JavaScript code runs within a certain context, called a > _window_, which has a corresponding _window object_. In some runtimes the > window object will be equivalent to the global object, but not always. > Scripts run within _window scope_, whereas modules run in their own lexical > context. The value of **this** in window scope is the window object." > > It's not as if `window` actually means "window" anymore, given tabs and > iframes and frames. We might as well move it into the set of terms like > "realm" or "vat" or "environment" that are more abstract than real. > > -----Original Message----- > From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of > Anne van Kesteren > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 11:19 > To: Andrea Giammarchi > Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Putting `global` reference in specs > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < > andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> 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 > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
