Re: excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)

2012-12-26 Thread Mark S. Miller
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM, David Herman wrote: > On Dec 26, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > >> I think you did coin "1JS". What do you mean by it? Does it bear on >> the present issue or not? > > I coined the "just one JavaScript" here: > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/e

Re: excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)

2012-12-26 Thread David Herman
On Dec 26, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > I think you did coin "1JS". What do you mean by it? Does it bear on > the present issue or not? I coined the "just one JavaScript" here: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-December/019112.html And it got shortened to 1JS

Re: excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)

2012-12-26 Thread Norbert Lindenberg
On Dec 26, 2012, at 15:35 , Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Herman wrote: >> On Dec 26, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: >> >>> Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about those earlier options. I am >>> arguing only the latter. Specifically "Any ES6 features th

Re: excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)

2012-12-26 Thread Mark S. Miller
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote: > I must admit, I'm a bit confused. My understanding of 1JS was that it meant > no new modes or pragmas. That seems to have little bearing on whether a > feature is restricted to strict mode or not, because that ship has already > sailed and t

Re: excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)

2012-12-26 Thread Brandon Benvie
I must admit, I'm a bit confused. My understanding of 1JS was that it meant no new modes or pragmas. That seems to have little bearing on whether a feature is restricted to strict mode or not, because that ship has already sailed and the cost is sunk. Aside from 1JS is, I think, a different discus

Re: excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)

2012-12-26 Thread Mark S. Miller
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM, David Herman wrote: > On Dec 26, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > >> Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about those earlier options. I am >> arguing only the latter. Specifically "Any ES6 features that don't fit >> into non-strict mode without contortion, in

Re: excluding features from sloppy mode (was: the 1JS experiment has failed)

2012-12-26 Thread David Herman
On Dec 26, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about those earlier options. I am > arguing only the latter. Specifically "Any ES6 features that don't fit > into non-strict mode without contortion, including "let" and nested > "function", should be available o