On Jan 4, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > Here's an interesting compromise I consider perfectly reasonable. We don't > *mandate* any ES6 code features be available in ES6 non-strict mode. But we > don't prohibit them either. For any ES6 features that have no dependence on > mode, like destructuring, we mandate that they be present in strict code, and > we make them normative optional (the new Appendix B category) in non-strict > code.
Too complicated. Why not just have "one JavaScript" (modulo ES5 strict mode, whether its selection was explicit or implicit)? > Implementors are free to implement them or not in non-strict mode, but if > they implement them, it must mean the same thing as the mandated meaning in > strict code. We need interop on the web. If we let implementations vary as to whether, e.g., rest parameters require "use strict", then I predict the implementations that *do not* require "use strict" will win, and we'll have to spec normative non-optional anyway. I'm very sure developers will not want "use strict"; as a requirement. That battle has been lost already with most developers (the war goes on, but let's not refight unnecessarily). Anyway, predictions aside, I do not agree we should require "use strict" if the syntax speaks for itself. My argument is not against strict mode (the basis of Harmony!) but rather against requiring "use strict"; directives to use new features that can be expressed without incompatible meaning shifts (only with guaranteed early errors in pre-Harmony implementations). /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
