On Mar 5, 2014, at 6:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>> John Barton wrote:
>>> As you say "all browsers seem to allow it". Browsers made the mistake and
>>> we should not go back now and blame developers on smaller sites because
>>> they use this kind of code. Make it a syntax error in modules and save
>>> yourself a lot of headaches.
>>
>> We could do this for sure, and in the absence of evidence that if (x)
>> function y(){} is used in the wild, we should. With such evidence, we
>> should. So, we should ;-).
>>
>> But there's more to consider. IIRC, originally KJS (pre-JSC) in WebKit did
>> not support function-in-block or function-in-unbraced-consequent. Then they
>> added function-in-block support, bowing to the well-known uses on the Web.
>> When did they add function-in-unbraced, and why? Perhaps someone can cite
>> the fixed webkit.org bug.
>
> We would have to come up with an an appropriate intersection semantics and we
> don't have a base ES semantics to work off of as a function declaration is
> illegal in that posiion in ES6. Would we also have to accommodate it for
> IterationStatements and WithStatement
Right, it is not free - nothing around here is!
The other way to go optimizes for the reason WebKit folks added unbraced
support no longer applying: leave draft ES6 as is, implement and test among
major browsers, and see what comes out in the wash.
If no one else looks, I will try to find the WebKit.org bug trail.
/be
>
> Allen
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
