On Jan 4, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > On 3 January 2012 21:01, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote: >>> On 3 January 2012 07:21, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>>> The top level is hard. The only way to be sure is to use pure lexical >>>> scope (in Dave's proposal, use module {...}). >>> >>> Ah, but wrapping into modules is incompatible with having multiple >>> script parts. >> >> I don't know what you mean. "Incompatible" in the sense that you cannot >> transform multiple scripts into multiple anonymous modules? > > Yes.
That's a feature, in the proposal. You want the old behavior? Use <script> without |use module;| or |module {...}|. There's your backward compatibility :-P. >>> For multi-part scripts we need a way to switch the >>> _proper_ top-level into extended mode. Or should I not be able to >>> write (the relevant bits of) a multi-part script in extended mode at >>> all? >> >> The proposal may have been unclear on this point: the top level would allow >> as much new syntax and semantics as can be tolerated backwards-compatibly. >> The hard cases are let, lexical scope in the free-variables-are-errors sense >> Dave described (extant globals at start of module body are imported), and >> any runtime shifts we want (completion reform, typeof null). > > I suspect there may be other subtle issues, e.g., what about `const' Not supported by IE, ever -- no intersection semantics (unlike block-contained functions). > and local functions? [I see, Allen mentioned that already.] Right. Oh, the pain! Still I don't want to fall back to versioning if these are one of a few hard cases. > In any case, even if we allow more features in classic mode Don't think of modes and you'll be grooving with the new proposal better ;-). > that > still doesn't give you the ability to use _all_ Harmony features for > multi-part scripts. I think we need a proper story for this. Agreed, but this desire is best satisfied by markup, e.g. that <meta> tag idea we've alluded to throughout this thread. Saying you want this doesn't undermine the new-syntax-as-opt-in proposal. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss