- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 14:44:53 -0800
- To: Mark Miller <erights@gmail.com>
- CC: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "es-discuss@mozilla.org" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Mark Miller wrote: > There, Boris writes: > > Conceptually, using the global of the realm of the function involved > > (i.e. the Chrome/Firefox/IE10 behavior) makes sense to me. > > Me too. This is in keeping with the spirit of lexical scoping. It is > as if these built-in functions have lexically captured the global of > the realm of their creation, and use that. Besides "throw", any other > answer would be too much magic and (at least) hard to explain. Also, > this aligns with the global capture of sloppy functions. This is how it was back in the beginning. Function objects each had a "parent" internal slot referencing their global. /be
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2015 22:45:27 UTC