On Mar 21, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > - Brendan proposed a reformed with statement that wouldn't interfere > were lexical lookup the way the old with statement does. > > Perhaps mistakenly, I took these as evidence that *only* backwards > compatibility concerns are keeping ES4 from ensuring that all lexical > bindings can be statically resolved. That's why I was surprised to > find a new language feature that inhibits static analysis in a manner > similar to old language features, which the designers are trying to > kill.
You're spot on. Compatibility means we will have certain pain points, probably forever. But adding another one is to be avoided without super-compelling reasons. Reformed with, which I suspect will be cut judging from the red on its row at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub? key=pFIHldY_CkszsFxMkQOReAQ&gid=2, was intended to aid migration of with-happy code to ES4, without losing all the benefits of strict mode (never mind performance; my mantra lately is that dynamic optimization techniques will speed JS up enough that types are really for programming in the large). And there is a ton of with-happy code out there, including web app and Ajax library code. So I agree: let's not add more loopholes without strong justification. And I'll wave the reformed with flag one last time, for adding to the bad old loopholes where they can be reformed, if not simply punishing them with a thousand cuts. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
