#means
Prior to Means 3(I), there is Goal 4
(http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:harmony#goals):
#
Keep versioning as simple and linear as possible.
We don't have concrete plans for a use strict in Harmony to opt into
a stricter than ES5 strict mode. The no more modes plea is good
):
#
Keep versioning as simple and linear as possible.
We don't have concrete plans for a use strict in Harmony to opt
into a stricter than ES5 strict mode. The no more modes plea is
good as far as it goes (just not absolute), so I hope we do not add
any such Harmony-strict-mode. We're really
in Harmony to opt into a
stricter than ES5 strict mode. The no more modes plea is good as far as
it goes (just not absolute), so I hope we do not add any such
Harmony-strict-mode. We're really trying not to make an N-dimensional
version/mode/pragma lattice.
But, again, ES5 makes incompatible
plans for a use strict in Harmony to
opt into a stricter than ES5 strict mode. The no more modes
plea is good as far as it goes (just not absolute), so I hope we
do not add any such Harmony-strict-mode. We're really trying not
to make an N-dimensional version/mode/pragma lattice
strict mode. The no more modes plea is good as far as
it goes (just not absolute), so I hope we do not add any such
Harmony-strict-mode. We're really trying not to make an N-dimensional
version/mode/pragma lattice.
But, again, ES5 makes incompatible (slight) changes to the de-facto
standard
for a use strict in Harmony to
opt into a stricter than ES5 strict mode. The no more modes
plea is good as far as it goes (just not absolute), so I hope we
do not add any such Harmony-strict-mode. We're really trying not
to make an N-dimensional version/mode/pragma lattice.
But, again
Prior to Means 3(I), there is Goal 4
(http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:harmony#goals):
Keep versioning as simple and linear as possible.
We don't have concrete plans for a use strict in Harmony to opt into a
stricter than ES5 strict mode. The no more modes plea is good as far
My thoughts for what they are worth:
The semantics for const in Harmony are likely to be silently different
in Harmony from the semantics it has in non-strict current
implementations. (In particular the current const is hoisted to the
surrounding function, whereas the one in Harmony won't, so
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Erik Corry wrote:
The semantics for const in Harmony are likely to be silently different
in Harmony from the semantics it has in non-strict current
implementations. (In particular the current const is hoisted to the
surrounding function, whereas the one in
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Recently, I met with the Google V8 team for two full days. One message that
came through loud and clear, that I said I would relay to the list, is
please, no more modes
said I would relay to the list, is
please, no more modes.
If this is an attempt to avoid script type=harmony (harmony a placeholder
for something more RFC4329-conformant), it's not going to work.
Declaring what the conclusions of discussions must be is not helpful. I am
raising an issue
team for two full days. One message
that came through loud and clear, that I said I would relay to the list, is
please, no more modes.
If this is an attempt to avoid script type=harmony (harmony a
placeholder for something more RFC4329-conformant), it's not going to work.
Declaring what
Given script type=harmony as an opt-in, I'm puzzled about how it would
work anyway. Since it is per script, not per frame, presumably
script type=harmonyuse strict; var e1 = eval;/script
scriptuse strict; var e2 = eval;/script
script ...use strict; e1 === e2 /*results in true*/ /script
would
also not have the global object at the bottom of their scope chain. This
in-language switch makes more sense to me than a markup-based switch such as
script ..., and would allow the switch to be recognized in non-browser
environments such as commonjs.
I will address the more general more modes
. Miller wrote:
Recently, I met with the Google V8 team for two full days. One message
that came through loud and clear, that I said I would relay to the list,
is please, no more modes.
If this is an attempt to avoid script type=harmony (harmony a
placeholder for something more RFC4329
tags
without inevitable syntax errors in old browsers on the new syntax that follows
the pragma. This means you have to eval, and this is both onerous for
developers and expensive (and different from script-loading) at runtime.
I will address the more general more modes and compatibility
On Oct 14, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I will address the more general more modes and compatibility direction
questions for later messages.
Please, let's get to this. Otherwise more-modular arguments about use
harmony (which is still a mode, I note!)
One more observation
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Erik Corry wrote:
14. okt. 2010 17.11 skrev Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com:
Flush out means make developers find all such uses, and do what?
Replace them with var, making whatever other changes are needed to
keep the program running.
Most developers I know
On 10/14/2010 08:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Thus there is already one bit of opt-in versioning state in ES5, which must be
carried from direct eval's caller to callee.
SpiderMonkey currently does this, but fairly shortly (I have patches) it will
not. The eval *function*'s implementation
On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 10/14/2010 08:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Thus there is already one bit of opt-in versioning state in ES5, which must
be carried from direct eval's caller to callee.
SpiderMonkey currently does this,
I wasn't describing any implementation,
On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Fixing this is possible too, if I can take liberties:
script-if type=application/ecmascript;version=6
// new.js inline-exanded here
On Oct 14, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
My priors (before studying the thread closely):
- I don't like modes.
It will be simpler and shorten correspondence for those who *do* like modes to
say so.
crickets
- If mode switching is necessary, I prefer in-band mode
Recently, I met with the Google V8 team for two full days. One message that
came through loud and clear, that I said I would relay to the list, is
please, no more modes.
Since we almost never get to retire anything that old code depends on,
addition of modes (like use strict) adds
23 matches
Mail list logo
