On 8/15/14, 1:03 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> On 15/08/2014 07:17, Jeff Walden wrote:
>> I think our best bet is probably to evangelize the change hard,
>> update AMO linters to flag the issue, and (gulp) wait for, and assist
>> wherever possible, addon authors to update their code. Part #1,
>> sh
On 08/15/2014 12:03 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> Last I checked, AMO's review flagging tools were all regex-based. I doubt
> even issue 1 is easily regex-able. :-(
Pretty sure they do syntax checks, at least, I think using Reflect.parse, or at
least with an embedded SpiderMonkey, unsure which.
On 15/08/2014 07:17, Jeff Walden wrote:
I think our best bet is probably to evangelize the change hard,
update AMO linters to flag the issue, and (gulp) wait for, and assist
wherever possible, addon authors to update their code. Part #1,
shouldn't be too bad because they're syntax errors easily
On 08/14/2014 10:57 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Does chrome and add-on JS code default to JSVERSION_1_8?
It defaults to the latest version, whatever that is, so warning doesn't end up
being reasonable.
I do not think the SpiderMonkey team is smart enough to have implemented both
the old semanti
On 8/13/14 3:02 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
About not changing the behavior for chrome JS, the prospect of having chrome JS
becoming more divergent from standard JS is unwelcome to me. Having additional,
orthogonal features is one thing, but a fundamental feature with the same
syntax that behaves di
On 8/13/14, 5:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:09:31PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>> On 2014-08-13, 6:02 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>>> About not changing the behavior for chrome JS, the prospect of having
>>> chrome JS becoming more divergent from standard JS is unwelcome to me.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:09:31PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2014-08-13, 6:02 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
> >About not changing the behavior for chrome JS, the prospect of having chrome
> >JS becoming more divergent from standard JS is unwelcome to me. Having
> >additional, orthogonal features i
On 2014-08-13, 6:02 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
About not changing the behavior for chrome JS, the prospect of having chrome JS
becoming more divergent from standard JS is unwelcome to me. Having additional,
orthogonal features is one thing, but a fundamental feature with the same
syntax that behave
very unsavory.
- Original Message -
From: "Ehsan Akhgari"
To: "Shu-yu Guo" , dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org,
dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Cc: "Jorge Villalobos"
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:45:17 PM
Subject: Re: Non-backward compatible changes to J
Hi,
On 08/13/2014 02:29 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
> We are in the process of making JS 'let' semantics ES6-compliant in
> SpiderMonkey. I hope to land bug 1001090 sometime this month or early next
> month (I've been told there's a B2G uplift on Sept 1st), which is one of many
> for ES6 'let'-complian
AFAICT gaia doesn't use let in its core code (since let is not available
in non-chrome js yet) but it does use it in its build scripts etc.
However, let is pretty heavily used in add-ons. CCing Jorge who can
probably help with what to do with that. But have we considered not
changing the beh
Hello all,
We are in the process of making JS 'let' semantics ES6-compliant in
SpiderMonkey. I hope to land bug 1001090 sometime this month or early next
month (I've been told there's a B2G uplift on Sept 1st), which is one of many
for ES6 'let'-compliance. It changes 'let' semantics in two non-ba
12 matches
Mail list logo
