micromodes involved implicit strict body from one param new syntax opt in; we did go there for v8.
-
-
Replying to @BrendanEich @domenic and
micromodes meant invisible strict based on knowledge of which version of JS syntax came from
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @BrendanEich and
function x(...y) { /* strict because ...y added in ES2015 */ }
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
right - not invisible!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
semantics based on which version of JS a feature was added bad as
@domenic forcefully argued in SF1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @lbljeffmo and
don't shift goalposts to "bad", admit it, your "invisible" was inaccurate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrendanEich @lbljeffmo and
of course I didn't mean to imply it wasn't speccable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @BrendanEich and
strict: function x() { new.target } function x(y=z) {} function x(...y) {} 1/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @BrendanEich and
not: function x() { return {get y() {}} } function x(y) {} function x() { arguments } 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @BrendanEich and
super -> strict, function* -> strict. What about function() { yield } (still supported in FF)
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
if you want to make the discussion about the meaning of "invisible", I concede completely
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.