Compatibility syntax:
For ES3 compatibility it would be simpler to just use:
use
strict
which parses as two expression statements in ES3.
> |this| never captures the global object
>
> In ES3, when a function is called "as a function" (that is, not as a
> method on some receiver object -- the notion is not syntactic, but can
> depend on the binding of the function) the value of |this| passed to the
> function is *null*. The callee (or the call protocol) substitutes the
> callee's global object for the *null* value, so the value of |this|
> observed in the callee is the callee's global object.
>
> If the callee is strict, however, the *null* is not converted to the
> callee's global object. Instead, if the callee evaluates the expression
> |this| when the value of |this| is *null* then a *ReferenceError* is
> thrown.
>
> *FIXME* We want to make that more precise but the current prose
> captures the intent well enough.
ES3 also special-cases <undefined>.
If I do
Foo.call(undefiend, x, y)
and Foo tries to get the value of <this>, then it will throw an error instead
of returning <undefined>?
1.5.1: I prefer the lightweight variant.
1.5.2: This can lead to trouble. For example, is the statement
x && f();
provably effect-free? What if the compiler discovers that x is a constant with
the value false?
What about the following?
...
globaleval("make x have a getter with a side effect");
...
x;
> *NOTE* It's daring of us to standardize restrictions on the behavior
> of a feature that's not itself specified by the Standard.
I agree. This does not belong in the standard. If we have a non-normative
appendix, it might go there.
Waldemar
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
