> From: Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> > To: Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> > Cc: es-discuss list <es-discuss@mozilla.org> > Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 14:45:08 -0800 > Subject: Re: Any news about the `<module>` element? > > On Dec 21, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:42 PM, James Burke <jrbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> (I am > >> sure you are aware of the coming Service Worker bliss, so not just a > >> curious side issue): > > > > I and some others have been advocating for service workers to run in > > strict mode by default, as well as having this be undefined so they > > could later be upgraded to be module compatible without requiring some > > new out-of-band switch. It hasn't really gotten much traction > > unfortunately. > > Wait a minute. "Strict mode" is not a runtime mode it is a lexical characteristic of a JS source file (or the source code of a function). You can this take an arbitrary JS file an say its going to be run in "strict mode". > > You could say that the source code for a Service Worker must be a Module (which implies that it is strict mode) even in import and export statements aren't yet support. But this would be a bit more work for implementations as it means that top-level module semantics (top level declarations are module local) would have to be implemented. > > Allen
A far as I know, much of the scope handling, sans strict mode, has been implemented in Node for years, so I don't expect it would be too extraordinarily hard to implement (particularly so for V8/consumers in this case). I may be wrong, though.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss