Dave Herman proposed as part of 1JS that module imply strict mode, so let
is reserved in module. So that helps.
Sure, for inline modules. But are externally loaded modules strict as
well? I think they should be...
1. 'let' only in strict code including modules per 1JS as originally
Question: does requiring strict mode for changes that break compatibility
with ES5 really address the 1JS concerns? We're making usages of the
identifier let that were valid in ES5 strict invalid in ES6 strict. Doesn't
that violate 1JS?
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Kevin Smith
On Nov 17, 2012, at 7:25 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
5. We could also allow 'let' per (4) in functions not in modules
that do not use strict but do use new ES6 syntax in their heads,
e.g. destructuring parameters, default parameters, rest
parameters. Those head features could
Yehuda Katz wrote:
Question: does requiring strict mode for changes that break
compatibility with ES5 really address the 1JS concerns?
Yes. 1JS is based on ES5 and so includes strict mode.
We're making usages of the identifier let that were valid in ES5
strict invalid in ES6 strict. Doesn't
-- Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Nov 18, 2012 4:29 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Yehuda Katz wrote:
Question: does requiring strict mode for changes that break
compatibility with ES5 really address the 1JS concerns?
Yes. 1JS is based on ES5 and so includes strict mode.
I
I believe that having a concise notation for linear algebra is an important
feature of a programming language that can dramatically improve code
readability, and furthermore that linear algebra is a powerful tool that
has many applications in java script. I would like to make the following
two
On Nov 18, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Matt Calhoun calhoun...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that having a concise notation for linear algebra is an important
feature of a programming language that can dramatically improve code
readability, and furthermore that linear algebra is a powerful tool that has
Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Nov 18, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Matt Calhouncalhoun...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that having a concise notation for linear algebra is an important feature of a programming language that can dramatically improve code readability, and furthermore that linear algebra is a
Brendan Eich wrote:
I agree that * or other operators should not be naively supported on
arrays, which are not value objects in any case. Any vector or matrix
value object would want sweet literal syntax, but it wouldn't be array
literal syntax, exactly.
Just to elaborate on this. The
9 matches
Mail list logo
