3 ms·
Right. Technically Mug will conform to the ECMAScript 3 Compact Profile: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-327.pdf http://www.ec
by timcameronryan 16y ago
Right. Technically Mug will conform to the ECMAScript 3 Compact Profile: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-327.pdf http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST... Which doesn't include eval() or the with(){} statement (both used infrequently enough that it's not worth the overhead).
A REPL would still be possible, however, it would require some work to maintain the current scope between input.
- Autre 16y agoIs there a reason you are not targeting ECMA5 (with the exclusions you mentioned)?
- timcameronryan 16y agoMuch of the runtime has been developing by trying out existing code, then adding support gradually. Of course most of the code I tried out was ECMA3 compliant. I expect to add in support for ECMAScript 5's Object extensions API (defineProperty, getters/setters) as Mug supports them internally, just as Mug already has a global JSON object. The features which could cause incompatibility with existing code is something I'd have to consider separately, so it depends when a majority of authors start writing ECMA5-compliant code (no function.callee, implicit this object bound to global, etc.)