The more I think about this, the more convinced I get that all new syntax
and breaking changes (where possible) should be strict-mode only. In
retrospect, `let[x] = y;` changed everything. Here's why I think "1JS
under strict" is the best solution:
- How exactly would one teach that classes, arrows, etc. are all available
in sloppy mode, but "let" is not? The reason is obscure for a casual user.
It's going to seem arbitrary. On the other hand, "1JS under strict" is
quite easy to teach.
- It creates a clean, linear evolution for javascript syntax: ES3 > ES5
strict > ES6 > ES7.
- It eliminates the so-called "micro-modes" in function heads.
- It gets everyone moving in the same direction: strict mode.
- It eliminates subjective questions about what constructs should be
implicitly strict.
To be clear, I'm proposing that:
1) All new syntax and breaking changes (where possible) are strict-mode
only.
2) Modules and only modules are implicitly strict.
Why not?
Lurkers out there! Would anyone be opposed to opting-in to new ES6 syntax
by either (a) "use strict" or (b) modules?
{ Kevin }
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
