Can you even deprecate sloppy mode? I know dev tools often use it to inject
the dev console extension APIs safely
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Jason Orendorff jason.orendo...@gmail.com
wrote:
AK I think we should either deprecate one of the modes, or officially
support multiple modes and
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Bradley Meck bradley.m...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can you even deprecate sloppy mode?
If you mean, can we get rid of it? Then no.
If you mean, can we discourage people from using it, and sneer at the
people who still do? Then yes.
Otherwise, please clarify what you
16.12.2014, 17:04, "Andrea Giammarchi" andrea.giammar...@gmail.com:On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Felipe Nascimento de Moura felipenmo...@gmail.com wrote: function () { use strict, safe;} This could allow us to even add some extra scoped-options, such as a safe mode.. I'm quite sure we've
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a scope variable? as is arguments...
Something like
function(){
window.scope.set('strict', true);
}
of
function(){
scope.set({
strict: true,
experimental: true,
safe: false
});
// then, other functions could turn
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Caitlin Potter caitpotte...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 18, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Alex Kocharin a...@kocharin.ru wrote:
16.12.2014, 17:04, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
(1,eval)( + function(){...strict code you want to execute sloppy...})()
This doesn't work in SpiderMonkey: stringifying functions retains their
strictness, no matter where strict mode is activated. In this case, the
I didn't know that SpiderMonkey did that, but I agree it is better. In
light of this news, I'm glad my code sample doesn't work ;).
As for would be good for all engines to act the same, the
precondition was carefully crafted so that engines did not need to
retain the original source, but rather,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't know that SpiderMonkey did that, but I agree it is better. In
light of this news, I'm glad my code sample doesn't work ;).
As for would be good for all engines to act the same, the
precondition was carefully
did anyone see my suggestion?
(actually, am not sure my e-mails are going out!)
Personally(again, my opinion), I think it is at least weird, having a
floating string on your code! Specially because(by now) this is the only
situation, with only one option, what makes it an exception.
ES has so
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Felipe Nascimento de Moura
felipenmo...@gmail.com wrote:
did anyone see my suggestion?
(actually, am not sure my e-mails are going out!)
Personally(again, my opinion), I think it is at least weird, having a
floating string on your code! Specially because(by
ok, makes sense!
The fact that this works at the compile time, really makes it impossible to
modify from scope to scope!
It was just a suggestion, syntax or the way it could be implemented was not
supposed to be exactly like that...but I think it might be interesting if
we had some of the
Till Schneidereit wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Mark Miller erig...@gmail.com
mailto:erig...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't know that SpiderMonkey did that, but I agree it is better. In
light of this news, I'm glad my code sample doesn't work ;).
As for would be good for all
That makes sense, yes. It’s great that we get this chance to clean up things in
ECMAScript 6.
On 16 Dec 2014, at 16:46, John Barton johnjbar...@google.com wrote:
1JS strict mode would look like modules.
jjb
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de
Given 1JS – would strict mode have been done differently in hindsight? How?
Thanks!
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de mailto:a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Interesting question!
I always found it weird, myself!
function () {
use strict;
}
It might be a new token, perhaps?
function () {
use strict, safe;
}
This could allow us to even add some extra scoped-options, such as a safe
mode...I am pretty sure you guys would have even more options
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Felipe Nascimento de Moura
felipenmo...@gmail.com wrote:
function () {
use strict, safe;
}
This could allow us to even add some extra scoped-options, such as a safe
mode..
I'm quite sure we've discussed already other directives and the unanimous
1JS strict mode would look like modules.
jjb
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
17 matches
Mail list logo
