| 01:48 | <sideshowbarker> | looking at https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/12679 |
| 01:49 | <sideshowbarker> | comments in that issue or here would be welcome |
| 01:50 | <sideshowbarker> |
|
| 01:50 | <sideshowbarker> | I am looking for where in the spec such a requirement is actually stated |
| 01:51 | <sideshowbarker> | I don’t seem to find it in the Appendix C summary https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/strict-mode-of-ecmascript.html |
| 01:54 | <jmdyck> | See https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-block-level-function-declarations-web-legacy-compatibility-semantics |
| 01:58 | <jmdyck> | So "Prior to ES2015, block-level functions were forbidden in strict mode." is technically correct, but misleading, because they were also forbidden in non-strict mode. (Forbidden by spec, not by implementation, that is.) |
| 02:08 | <Jessidhia> | ah, and this is the part that implements the block scoping https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/ecmascript-language-statements-and-declarations.html#sec-blockdeclarationinstantiation (3b) |
| 02:20 | <jmdyck> | Re not finding it in Annex C: It looks like Annex C doesn't mention differences between strict and non-strict that only arise due to Annex B stuff. |
| 21:04 | <pokute> | New Babel version with decorators that conform to the latest version of the proposal came out a few days ago https://babeljs.io/blog/2022/02/02/7.17.0#decorators-14004httpsgithubcombabelbabelpull14004-13681httpsgithubcombabelbabelpull13681 , but there has been no news about it on twitter or even Decorator proposal repo! Next step according to Decorators proposal's standardization plan is to collect feedback on the transpiler implementation, but we can't do it if no-one tests it out. (Unless no comments / testers is treated as no objections and it thus proceeds forward). Drum up the social media and other channels! Make people excited about decorators! |