We are now focused on "new syntax is opt-in" model. No new versions required (allowed but not required). Even with new syntax we do not propose to make existing syntax change meaning(much or at all) in ES.next.
/be On Jan 4, 2012, at 3:23 PM, François REMY <fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > Is breaking current code so much of a problem? If, by default, javascript > refers to "ES5" and if we introduce a "use version 6" pragma, breaking old > code isn't a problem anymore. Scripting languages on UNIX are doing exactly > this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix)]. The first line indicate > the compiler/interpretor to use. That way you will never break the web, but > you allow ECMAScript to move forward. We really need this. > > That doesn't mean we have to start over a new language but if, to make the > language better, we have to make some changes that will have a minor impact > on existing code (seriously, who is using code blocks at all?), this should > not be a blocking issue. The comitee removed the with functionnality in ES5 > strict. That wasn't a problem. People can still use their old code and can > opt-in for a new version with stricter rules. > > For people wanting to convert old code to ES6, there will be automated tools > that can predict reliably if your code continues to work under ES6 and can > notice you of problems. If those are rare engouh, most of our code will > continue to run. > > > > -----Message d'origine----- From: Brendan Eich > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:03 AM > To: es-discuss > Subject: Re: Boolean shortcuts > > On Jan 4, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Herby Vojčík wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> as I already posted in the parallel thread, there is that strawman called >>> "do expression" by dherman that does just that. >>> >>> I feel like crying when I see how powerful data constructs could be if not >>> hampered by "possible to parse as code block" ambiguity. >> >> Yes, I have felt like crying too -- I did some work (see >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-June/015568.html) > > I should have also linked: > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_vs_object_literal > > Of course, > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:do_expressions > > is much simpler. > > Neither addresses the empty-block/object issue by trying to evaluate {} as an > object literal where today it's a block statement. > > /be > > _______________________________________________ > 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
