Mark, It was coined by Remy Sharp http://remysharp.com/2010/10/08/what-is-a-polyfill/
...I still don't understand how it differs from "shim" Rick On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Xavier MONTILLET < > xavierm02....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why >> >> use version 6; >> >> and not >> >> "use version 6"; >> >> ? Just to be sure ES 6 code breaks in old browsers ? >> And what do you mean by "opt-in for ES6" ? New syntax ? Everything in ES >> 6 ? >> >> I'm thinking about weakmaps: >> - on the one hand, you want to use native weakmaps when available so >> you would want to "opt-in for ES6" >> - but on the other hand, you could also implement a weakmap "polyfill" >> that wouldnt be as efficient, that would suck the memory but still >> work, and have it work in older browsers >> > > > http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/caja/ses/WeakMap.js > is a WeakMap polyfill that should work *transparently* in all ES5 > conformant browsers. It is indeed not as efficient, but it's better than > you might expect ;). > > Btw, where does the term "polyfill" come from? > > > > >> >> Therefore, setting the thing to do to "opt-in for ES6" to something >> not backward compatible doesn't seem like a good idea to me. >> >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I did start a related thread a while ago [1]. >> > >> > Brendan's response [2] explained a few things: >> > "Please read RFC 4329: >> > >> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4329 >> > >> > There will be *at least* a ;version=6 parameter you can use, probably >> > with either application/javascript and application/ecmascript -- I have >> > argued that we should align version numbers." >> > >> > >> > "Beyond the RFC 4329 version= parameter, we also want a pragma for >> > in-script-content version assertion: >> > >> > use version 6;" >> > >> > See the full response [2] for full context. >> > >> > Besides an es-discuss thread, I think that what is really needed is an >> > harmony proposal. How to opt-in for ES6 is outside of the scope of pure >> > ECMAScript (especially if it's with playing with the HTML script tag >> > @type attribute), but let's face it, web devs need this information and >> > a wiki page on the topic would be handy. >> > >> > At the time of reading Brendan's response, I didn't have anything to add >> > on that and I still don't. Unlike HTML and CSS, JavaScript needs new >> > syntax features. Syntax features that are NOT backward compatible with >> > ES3. If you use one of these features, your script break in older >> > browsers (unlike new HTML elements and CSS rules). >> > I don't see an alternative to versionning. Smarter people are welcome to >> > jump in, I guess. >> > >> > David >> > >> > [1] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-August/016262.html >> > [2] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-August/016267.html >> > >> > Le 19/12/2011 11:49, Peter van der Zee a écrit : >> >> >> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/018924.html >> >> >> >> ``use version 6;`` >> >> >> >> In which thread on esdiscuss should I have read about that? >> >> >> >> - peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> es-discuss mailing list >> >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > es-discuss mailing list >> > es-discuss@mozilla.org >> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
