Wouldn't it be interesting to have a "scope" variable? as is arguments...

Something like

function(){
    window.scope.set('strict', true);
}

of

function(){
    scope.set({
        "strict": true,
        "experimental": true,
        "safe": false
    });

    // then, other functions could turn on/off some of it
    someEl.addEventListener('click', function(){
        scope.set('safe', true);
        ...
        // or even
        if( scope.get('experimental') ){
            // doSomethingNew();
        }
    });

}

This is just a "raw" suggestion, and personally, I think it should NOT be
possible to turn off an "strict" or "safe" definition, even when it comes
from a parenting scope.
But this way, it would be "polyfillable", future-friendly, for new stuff
and new versions of ES, and browser support, and maybe the new scope
feature might bring some other benefits, such as a native "supports" for
new feature, or a new way to support sandboxed scopes.

I wonder if something like this couldn't be used to define a scope as a
"worker", to run in a new process thread(sandboxed, in this case).

Let me know what you think, or if you haven't already discussed something
similar.

Cheers.



On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Alex Kocharin <alex at kocharin.ru> wrote:
>
>
>
> 16.12.2014, 17:04, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Felipe Nascimento de Moura <
> felipenmoura at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> function () {
>     use strict, safe;
> }
>
> This could allow us to even add some extra scoped-options, such as a safe
> mode..
>
>
>
> I'm quite sure we've discussed already other directives and the unanimous
> answer here was "NO, 'use strict' is already problematic"
>
>
>
> It's problematic mostly because it can't be turned off when it's needed.
> So another directive like "use nostrict" would be welcome imho. Especially
> in modules when "strict" is on by default.
>
> I think we should either deprecate one of the modes, or officially support
> multiple modes and provide a method to switch between them.
>
>


-- 
*Felipe N. Moura*
Senior Web Developer

Website:  http://felipenmoura.org
Twitter:    @felipenmoura <http://twitter.com/felipenmoura>
LinkedIn: http://goo.gl/qGmq

Meet some of my projects:
BrazilJS Conference <http://braziljs.com.br/>  |  BrazilJS Foundation
<http://braziljs.org>  |  Power Polygon
<http://github.com/braziljs/power-polygon>  |  TheWebMind
<http://thewebmind.org/>  |  PHPDevBar
<https://addons.mozilla.org/pt-BR/firefox/addon/php-developer-toolbar/>
---------------------------------
LinuxUser #508332
*Changing  the  world*  is the least I expect from  myself!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141218/cadb0d37/attachment-0001.html>

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a "scope" variable? as is arguments...

Something like

```js
function(){
    window.scope.set('strict', true);
}
```

of

```js
function(){
    scope.set({
        "strict": true,
        "experimental": true,
        "safe": false
    });

    // then, other functions could turn on/off some of it
    someEl.addEventListener('click', function(){
        scope.set('safe', true);
        ...
        // or even
        if( scope.get('experimental') ){
            // doSomethingNew();
        }
    });

}
```

This is just a "raw" suggestion, and personally, I think it should NOT be
possible to turn off an "strict" or "safe" definition, even when it comes
from a parenting scope.
But this way, it would be "polyfillable", future-friendly, for new stuff
and new versions of ES, and browser support, and maybe the new scope
feature might bring some other benefits, such as a native "supports" for
new feature, or a new way to support sandboxed scopes.

I wonder if something like this couldn't be used to define a scope as a
"worker", to run in a new process thread(sandboxed, in this case).

Let me know what you think, or if you haven't already discussed something
similar.