On 3 September 2015 at 20:57, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> Andreas Rossberg wrote: > >> On 3 September 2015 at 03:50, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org <mailto: >> bren...@mozilla.org>> wrote: >> >> I don't remember you overcoming the counterarguments about async >> scripts and event handlers in async-generated/written markup >> twisting the nested scopes unexpectedly. >> >> >> The only cases where the scope order would make an observable difference >> are ones that produce conflicts right now. So you'd only allow a few more >> programs -- somewhat ill-behaved (non-deterministic) ones, but no more >> ill-behaved than those that you can write with `var` today (or could with >> `let` if it was a property on the global object! -- non-deterministic >> shadowing is still a less drastic effect than non-deterministic >> overwriting). >> > > The problem is the cognitive model and load. Nothing helps > non-deterministic loading of scripts with global effects, but making every. > last. script! nest a fresh lexical scope means "now you have two problems". > What I mean is that in a model with mutable scope (or worse, the global object) _declarations_ themselves become global effects. Later conflicts can affect all code that has been loaded _before_, e.g. by smashing over an existing binding. /Andreas
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
