On 9/7/14, Domenic Denicola <dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > I don't understand why this is any more surprising than any other function > that calls its callback with .call(something). It doesn't matter whether the > callback is strict or not; .call(window), which is what the spec does, will > override it. > > As far as I can see this issue has absolutely nothing to do with strict vs. > sloppy. > I agree on that point; setTimeout passes the window to the callback as the this value. But that has nothing to do with inheritance.
Method setTimeout uses the global object as the `this` value for the callback function, much like addEventListener, etc, as does `.call(window)` like you mentioned. ________________________________ > From: Andrea Giammarchi<mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> > Sent: 2014-09-07 19:14 > To: Mark Miller<mailto:erig...@gmail.com> > Cc: Mark S. Miller<mailto:erig...@google.com>; es-discuss > list<mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org> > Subject: Re: "use strict" VS setTimeout > > It feels to me also a vector that will happily pass all linters and code > analyzers giving users a door to reach native context and start playing in > there with everything else. I'm pretty sure you would agree on this too :) > > Please let us know if there's any follow up, it's probably easier/faster if > some googler mention this issue to other googlers that are collaborating > with WHATWG or W3C or both (or none) > > Thanks > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Mark Miller > <erig...@gmail.com<mailto:erig...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Andrea Giammarchi > <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com<mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Yes Axel, that's how it works, this will show undefined indeed all over > > ```js > (function () { > 'use strict'; > function g() { > console.log(this); > } > g(); // undefined > setTimeout(function () { > g(); // undefined > }, 0); > }()); > ``` > > or testing other use strict restrictions: > > ```js > (function () { > 'use strict'; > setTimeout(function () { > argument.callee > }, 0); > }()); > ``` > > The strict behavior is preserved, it's not an opt-out, but the invoked > function within setTimeout has the global context regardless it has been > defined under the strict directive + regardless it defines itself as > strict. > > Basically if you feel secure about "use strict" here you have a case that > shows you shouldn't ... making one point of strict directive kinda > broken/pointless. > > Agreed. I would remove only "kinda" from that statement ;). > > > > Regards > > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Axel Rauschmayer > <a...@rauschma.de<mailto:a...@rauschma.de>> wrote: > On Sep 7, 2014, at 19:47 , Mark S. Miller > <erig...@google.com<mailto:erig...@google.com>> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Mathias Bynens > <mathi...@opera.com<mailto:mathi...@opera.com>> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Andrea Giammarchi > <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com<mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> This looks like a potential problem when possible passed methods are not >> bound + it looks inconsistent with *"use strict"* expectations. > > Yes. This looks like a typical screwup. Thanks for pointing it out. > > Interesting. Follow-up question: isn't strictness propagated lexically? That > is, shouldn't the parameter of `setTimeout()` be strict even without being > explicitly declared as such? > > > -- > > Cheers, > --MarkM > > -- Garrett @xkit ChordCycles.com garretts.github.io _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
