. Although, to
provide some context, the same set contains nearly 2000 sites that declare
functions in blocks (~60 of those declare those functions in loops).
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 Mar 6, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Brian Terlson wrote:
Chakra, and other implementations I imagine, will remove features that are
non-standard and are unused. Getting usage data is the hard part, so anything
concrete anyone can share would be helpful. I am in favor of removing this if
we can
We have discussed, at length, the various ways in which browsers differ in
their handling of functions-in-blocks:
```js
if(test) {
function foo() { }
}
```
At the last TC-39 we approved semantics for block-scoped functions in sloppy
mode. We did not discuss directly, that I recall
Brian Terlson wrote:
I haven't collected much data on this so I'm not sure what the
prevalence is,
Can you try to find some sightings in the wild?
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Brendan Eich wrote:
Brian Terlson wrote:
I haven't collected much data on this so I'm not sure what the
prevalence is,
Can you try to find some sightings in the wild?
I have searched my Alexa Top 10k dataset and didn't find any occurrences. The
dataset has the same limitations as before
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brian Terlson
brian.terl...@microsoft.comwrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Brian Terlson wrote:
I haven't collected much data on this so I'm not sure what the
prevalence is,
Can you try to find some sightings in the wild?
I have searched my Alexa Top 10k
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,
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
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
On 3/5/14 4:26 PM, Brian Terlson wrote:
I haven't collected much data on this so I'm not sure what the
prevalence is
Given the number of stackoverflow posts I've seen that come down to
browsers not being exactly compatible on their handling of this code,
its prevalence is too high to allow
Has a decision been made how to handle functions in blocks in sloppy mode? Did
I miss it?
Similarly: are only the bodies of modules implicitly strict? Or the bodies of
classes, too?
Given the trick with contextually interpreting `let` as a keyword in sloppy
mode, all ES6 features seem
:13 PM
Has a decision been made how to handle functions in blocks in sloppy
mode? Did I miss it?
Similarly: are only the bodies of modules implicitly strict? Or the
bodies of classes, too?
Given the trick with contextually interpreting `let` as a keyword in
sloppy mode, all ES6 features seem
intersection semantics [for function in
block outside of strict code], and (later) Class, Modules implicitly
strict.
/be
Axel Rauschmayer mailto:a...@rauschma.de
September 13, 2013 10:13 PM
Has a decision been made how to handle functions in blocks in sloppy
mode? Did I miss
13 matches
Mail list logo
