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:dmit...@dmitriid.com
> 
> > 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:dmit...@dmitriid.com
> 
> > 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Reply via email to