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
proposed
...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
Dave Herman proposed as part of 1JS that module imply strict mode, so
let is reserved in module. So that helps.
For let outside of modules, we could contextually parse let at start of
statement if followed by an identifier or a { that starts an object
pattern. We could even allow
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Dave Herman proposed as part of 1JS that module imply strict mode, so let
is reserved in module. So that helps.
For let outside of modules, we could contextually parse let at start of
statement if followed
Yehuda Katz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Dave Herman proposed as part of 1JS that module imply strict mode,
so let is reserved in module. So that helps.
For let outside of modules, we could contextually
: Sunday, November 18, 2012 04:25
To: Yehuda Katz
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: let and strict mode
Yehuda Katz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Dave Herman proposed as part of 1JS that module imply strict mode,
so
Another experiment would tell us more...and as Peter points out, there are
people who like to put their declarator keyword on a separate line.
Mmm... I think a [no LineTerm] restriction is going to bite too hard in
this case. If let in non-strict mode were a context-sensitive keyword
would be to only allow let in strict
mode. A carrot (or stick, depending on your point of view) to get users
into strict?
- Kevin
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Kevin Smith wrote:
var let = [], num = 0;
let[num] = f();
Awww, that's hard. I am really curious how this one is solved.
- Kevin
Herby
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Doesn't the same problem exist with:
var let = function() {};
let();
Or:
var let = { it: be };
let.it // be
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
var let = [], num = 0;
let[num] = f();
Awww, that's hard. I
Yehuda Katz wrote:
Doesn't the same problem exist with:
var let = function() {};
let();
Or:
var let = { it: be };
let.it http://let.it // be
These seem to be parseable better (especially the latter), but how to
distiguish if
let [foo] = bar
is let with destructuring
var let = function() {};
let();
If let is a contextual keyword (in non-strict mode of course), then we can
look ahead to the token after `let` to validate it. An open paren cannot
follow a let *keyword*, so therefore it must be an identifier.
var let = { it: be };
let.it //
On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to figure this out from the current draft, but is
let only available from strict mode code? This is valid under ES5
non-strict via ASI:
No, it is currently spec'ed as a reserved keyword in both regular and strict
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
This is what TC39 agreed to try when we started down the 1JS path, with
the expectation that implementation would explore the compatibility impact.
JSC tried making let a keyword and it broke things, forcing them
Of course, 'let' short for 'letter' :-|.
Contextual keyword with [no LineTerminator here] after sounds like the
plan. I'm curious whether you have already implemented this in Traceur?
/be
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Of course, 'let' short for 'letter' :-|.
Contextual keyword with [no LineTerminator here] after sounds like the plan.
I'm curious whether you have already implemented this in Traceur?
/be
I wonder if the [no LineTerminator here] is
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Of course, 'let' short for 'letter' :-|.
Contextual keyword with [no LineTerminator here] after sounds like the plan.
I'm curious whether you have already
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Of course, 'let' short for 'letter' :-|.
Contextual keyword with [no LineTerminator here] after sounds like the plan.
I'm curious whether you have already implemented this in Traceur?
/be
I wonder if the [no
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Of course, 'let' short for 'letter' :-|.
Contextual keyword with [no LineTerminator here] after sounds like the
plan. I'm curious whether you have already
22 matches
Mail list logo
