Huzzah!
/be
Mike Taylor wrote:
On 3/25/14, 13:23, Mike Taylor wrote:
On 3/14/14, 15:53, Brendan Eich wrote:
I say we should evangelize this site.
I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=987889 to track
this.
For those not following the bug, a fix for this has been committe
On 3/25/14, 13:23, Mike Taylor wrote:
On 3/14/14, 15:53, Brendan Eich wrote:
I say we should evangelize this site.
I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=987889 to track
this.
For those not following the bug, a fix for this has been committed to
the battlefield.com codebase
On 3/14/14, 15:53, Brendan Eich wrote:
I say we should evangelize this site.
I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=987889 to track
this.
--
Mike Taylor
Web Compat, Mozilla
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https:/
I’ve landed the change to JSC to silently ignore the assignment in the
non-strict “var ident =“ case, everything else is still an error so
deconstruction and |of| enumeration will trigger a syntax error.
—Oliver
On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Peter v
Brendan Eich wrote:
Peter van der Zee wrote:
Which browsers currently don't accept this construct? I wasn't even
aware that JSC didn't support it at some point.
Did anyone say JSC lacked support? I think KJS followed ES3, and this
was in the ES1 grammar, so I doubt it was never supported.
If we can get uglify and closure compiler to reject it it will go a long
way toward making sure it doesn't crop up in the wild.
On Mar 14, 2014 10:20 PM, "Brendan Eich" wrote:
> Peter van der Zee wrote:
>
>>
>> Which browsers currently don't accept this construct? I wasn't even aware
>> that JSC
Peter van der Zee wrote:
Which browsers currently don't accept this construct? I wasn't even
aware that JSC didn't support it at some point.
Did anyone say JSC lacked support? I think KJS followed ES3, and this
was in the ES1 grammar, so I doubt it was never supported.
Minifiers might re
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Geoffrey Garen wrote:
>
>> I suggested to Oliver that we accept "Identifier = Expression in
>> Expression” as valid syntax, but drop "= Expression” from the parse tree
>> after the fact.
>>
>
> Note that the issue here is only legacy that use
Geoffrey Garen wrote:
I suggested to Oliver that we accept "Identifier = Expression in
Expression” as valid syntax, but drop "= Expression” from the parse
tree after the fact.
Note that the issue here is only legacy that uses 'var' before
Identifier. So you can't be sure of no compat break, s
> JSC has been trying to kill off the initialiser expression in the for(in)
> statement, but we've encountered a bunch of reasonably significant content
> that breaks with it disallowed (a particularly prominent one currently is
> http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/), so we will be bringing ba
Brendan Eich wrote:
for (var i = 0 in debug.audio)
BTW, ur-JS in Netscape would not parse this. The optional initializer
fell out of grammar over-reuse in ES1, possibly also works-in-JScript
lobbying (my memory fades but that is where it came from).
/be
___
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
On 14 March 2014 00:59, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> JSC has been trying to kill off the initialiser expression in the for(in)
> statement, but we've encountered a bunch of reasonably significant content
> that breaks with it disallowed (a particularly prominent one currently
On 14 March 2014 00:59, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> JSC has been trying to kill off the initialiser expression in the for(in)
> statement, but we've encountered a bunch of reasonably significant content
> that breaks with it disallowed (a particularly prominent one currently is
> http://battlelog.battlef
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM, David Herman wrote:
> Sad panda. At least we can disable it in strict mode, right?
>
yes!
>
> And who knows, maybe some day, some day...
>
> Dave, dreaming of ES24
>
I'll hazard a public prediction for the record:
Since ES6 does implicit strict opt-in for b
Sad panda. At least we can disable it in strict mode, right?
And who knows, maybe some day, some day...
Dave, dreaming of ES24
On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> JSC has been trying to kill off the initialiser expression in the for(in)
> statement, but we've encountered a bunch
JSC has been trying to kill off the initialiser expression in the for(in)
statement, but we've encountered a bunch of reasonably significant content that
breaks with it disallowed (a particularly prominent one currently is
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/), so we will be bringing back suppo
16 matches
Mail list logo
