I thought the "caller" has been removed from the spec, so there isn't much
to do with the "caller" since it is not standard. It's implementation's own
extension.
But maybe we can also extend The forbidden extensions section.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 1:12 AM Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> Le 8 déc. 2019
>> Le 8 déc. 2019 à 14:43, Jack Works a écrit :
>
> In the current spec, strictness of the built-in functions are
> implementation-dependent behaviors. This proposal is going to fix this
> problem.
> https://github.com/Jack-Works/proposal-strict-built-in-functions
>
Hi,
See
Wow, Edge is definitely in violation of the intent of the spec, and the
intent of the history of treatments of .caller in previous discussions and
specs over the years. The Edge behavior is grossly unsafe.
Hi Jack, thanks for catching this and raising it!! It does need to be
fixed. I do think it
It is a runtime level change. I think it might break some code that depends
on the strictness of the built-in function like code that using func.caller.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2019, 9:48 PM Isiah Meadows wrote:
> You might do better to file a pull request directly against the spec for
> this:
You might do better to file a pull request directly against the spec for
this: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262. To me, it looks more like an
oversight, not something that would likely have to go through all 4 stages.
(If it does, at least you already have a repo for it.)
On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at
In the current spec, strictness of the built-in functions are
implementation-dependent behaviors. This proposal is going to fix this
problem.
https://github.com/Jack-Works/proposal-strict-built-in-functions
___
es-discuss mailing list
6 matches
Mail list logo
