Neither should emails have that. Please refer to [1] in the future. Thank you!
[1] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2017-July/048584.html On Saturday, August 5, 2017 6:35:19 PM CEST Dmitrii Dimandt wrote: > Too bad emails don’t have "thumbs up" and “+1”s :) So here’s my "+1” to you > > On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 at 18:28 "T.J. Crowder" > > < > > mailto: > > wrote: > a, pre, code, a:link, body { word-wrap: break-word !important; } > > On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Dmitrii Dimandt > > < > mailto:[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > So, in my opinion, the argument for not adding new global entities > > > > such as System, or Module, or Loader (or heck, even all three of > > > > them) being “these are not keywords, we can’t introduce them” is > > > > really really weak. > > Is anyone making that argument? I certainly am not. Not only is it possible > to add more global entities, as you point out, it's been done repeatedly: > `Symbol`, `Reflect`, etc. They just can't be *keywords* without breaking > things. They have to be identifiers. Which means they have bindings with > values. Which means those values can be copied. Which has implications. > > On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Dmitrii Dimandt > > < > mailto:[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > That’s not what I was really aiming at :) > > > > > > > > The original concern was “to get ‘module’ : 1. It's a > > > > context-sensitive keyword, and code that's using it needs to > > > > be updated when migrated to a module. “ > > > > > > > > I was just pointing out that ‘import’ is already a context- > > > > sensitive keyword (as are a bunch of others, like super. > > > > Is super a keyword BTW?) > > My point was that this would be the only case I know of where it would be a > keyword in one context but an identifier in another in the *exact same > production*. `super`, `import`, etc., are **always** keywords. You just > can't use them except in certain contexts. So I shouldn't have said > "context-sensitive keyword" so much as "keyword or identifier depending on > context." (But then...I did, earlier; I figured the shorthand was okay > after spelling it out longhand. :-) ) > > But again: Maybe that's feasible. Or maybe it's not a problem passing the > value around, in which case a predefined `module` identifier only in module > code isn't a problem anyway. > > -- T.J. Crowder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
