domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-12-10T01:27:06.838Z)
That would probably be the expectation, and I'm possibly just missing
something in the spec. It does add an extra degree of complexity, though.
Consider this edge case:
(x = function z(x) { delete x }) => { "use strict" }
When we parse the invalid unary expression in function 'z', we don't even
know that we're in a "maybe strict" context yet. It's only after we see
the "=>" that we know. It's still doable without an AST walk though, I think.
> > >> x => { "use strict"; with (x) {} } // Not a strict-mode error >> > > Spec bug if so -- that should make the arrow function so stated have > strict code. > > That would probably be the expectation, and I'm possibly just missing something in the spec. It does add an extra degree of complexity, though. Consider this edge case: (x = function z(x) { delete x }) => { "use strict" } When we parse the invalid unary expression in function 'z', we don't even know that we're in a "maybe strict" context yet. It's only after we see the "=>" that we know. It's still doable without an AST walk though, I think. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131129/c1608ef7/attachment.html>