On 31 May 2012 19:21, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Dave. > > Bottom-citing here, and again I'm a sinner too, but could everyone on this > nicely long thread take a breath and remember two things: > > 1. We aren't going to reform 'with' for ES6 or Harmony. It's banned in > strict mode, there due to 1JS in the non-strict mode of the language, not > to be fiddled with. None of the experienced folks here are suggesting any > objects-on-the-scope-chain, as Dave notes. >
And if that's the decision, that's fine. Note that I wasn't (and don't) advocate reviving the old `with`. My point is that the discussion of object extension literals was clearly headed toward being a new `with`, esp. with the introduction (I'm not sure from whom) of function calls. It was headed toward being "with-lite". So my recommendation is either bite the bullet, or let it go. I'm not seeing the value of a half-with a'la the current strawman. Happy to be persuaded, but not seeing it, esp. in light of the [[DefineOwnProperty]] vs. [[Put]] situation. My suggestion (in the other thread) addresses that by encompassing the full spectrum, with an explicit and distinct syntax. (What's meant to be the convention here? I've been trimming and typing under what I cite. I'm seeing a complete mish-mash of styles and not sure which you were asking us to use. Keen to go with the flow.) -- T.J.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
