Daniel Ehrenberg
Daniel Ehrenberg
I don't know how I would write such a test, since I am not sure what scenario you are concerned about. It doesn't seem plausible to me that the JS...
About the idea in https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/1292#issuecomment-789329628 : I'm a little uneasy about that API surface suggestion, as it seems to contradict the concept that ["Getters must not have any observable side...
I assume const, class, catch and function bindings are included under var and let bindings where appropriate, right? Note that sloppy-mode function hoisting is especially complicated.
Yeah, modulo details that should work well, especially if you ban sloppy mode (sloppy-mode function hoisting would probably need special AST representation).
There's definitely a lot of sites that depend on Annex B 3.3. I'd be a bit scared of effectively another language mode--removing this seems much more drastic than the delayed...
Cc @erights
Maybe build tools can tell at JS code which would take advantage of it, and there's more flexibility than I am fearing. I can't be sure.
JS implementations tend to do a lot of static analysis on sloppy mode code, e.g. for scope resolution when possible. It is true that eval is worse in sloppy mode,...
This is a source of complexity in V8's parser as well (except we track the potential errors all the time, to avoid backtracking ever). Could the AST pre-parse "use strict"...
Could we allow base64 data URLs here to avoid breaking HTML parsing?