On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, predictions aside, I do not agree we should require "use strict"
> if the syntax speaks for itself.
>
Is anyone saying that we should require this? I'm not. This sub-thread
started with Dave's "module" as opt-in suggestion and you and I agreed
earlier that "class" would also opt-in, so I'm not sure what you're arguing
against.
>
> 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).
We're already agreeing that there should be multiple ways to opt-in to
strict mode, with "function*" joining this happy set.
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
