On 2 October 2014 09:24, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> On 1 October 2014 20:32, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think there is a way that the error could occur at runtime even in
>> all-strict-mode code: when a new const is added at toplevel in a
>> second script.
>>
>> <script>
>> "use strict";
>> function f(value) { x = value; }
>> </script>
>
> That's an early ReferenceError right there, AFAICT, regardless of what
> follows in a later script.
I take that back, I just realised it's not. I somehow thought that
strict mode would also fix unbound assignments, but apparently that
was wishful thinking on my part. Not happy. :(
/Andreas
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-10-15T18:43:54.232Z)
I take that back, I just realised it's not. I somehow thought that
strict mode would also fix unbound assignments, but apparently that
was wishful thinking on my part. Not happy. :(
On 2 October 2014 09:24, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote: > On 1 October 2014 20:32, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote: >> I think there is a way that the error could occur at runtime even in >> all-strict-mode code: when a new const is added at toplevel in a >> second script. >> >> <script> >> "use strict"; >> function f(value) { x = value; } >> </script> > > That's an early ReferenceError right there, AFAICT, regardless of what > follows in a later script. I take that back, I just realised it's not. I somehow thought that strict mode would also fix unbound assignments, but apparently that was wishful thinking on my part. Not happy. :( /Andreas