As far as I can see, strict
refers to the [[Strict]]
internal slot of the function object.
No. And yes. It does refer to the strictness of the function (or script) in which the block that contains the function declaration occurs. Not to the strictness of the function that is (or is not) to be declared.
The "web extensions" do only apply to sloppy (non-strict) code, and only if the appearance of the function statement is "sane" - that is, for example, if its name doesn't collide with a formal parameter or lexically declared variable.
Notice that there is no difference between strict and sloppy code without the web-compatibility semantics. In pure ES6, there is only one behaviour for function declarations in blocks.
So we basically have
| web-compat pure
-----------------+---------------------------------------------
strict mode ES6 | block hoisting block hoisting
sloppy mode ES6 | it's complicated 1 block hoisting
strict mode ES5 | undefined behavior 2 SyntaxError
sloppy mode ES5 | undefined behavior 3 SyntaxError
1: See below. Warnings are asked for.
2: Typically, a SyntaxError
is thrown
3: The note in ES5.1 §12 talks of "significant and irreconcilable variations among the implementations" (such as these). Warnings are recommended.
So now how does an ES6 implementation with web compatibility behave for a function declaration in a block in a sloppy-mode function with legacy semantics?
First of all, the pure semantics still apply. That is, the function declaration is hoisted to the top of the lexical block.
However, there is also a var
declaration that is hoisted to the top of the enclosing function.
And when the function declaration is evaluated (in the block, as if it was met like a statement), the function object is assigned to that function-scoped variable.
This is better explained by code:
function enclosing(…) {
…
{
…
function compat(…) { … }
…
}
…
}
works the same as
function enclosing(…) {
var compat? = undefined; // function-scoped
…
{
let compat? = function compat(…) { … }; // block-scoped
…
compat? = compat?;
…
}
…
}
Yes, that's a bit confusing, having two different bindings (denoted with the subscripts 0 and 1) with the same name. So now I can succinctly answer your questions:
Visible outside of block?
Yes, like a var
. However, there's a second binding that is visible only inside the block.
Hoisted?
Yes - twice.
Up to which point?
Both to the function (however initialised with undefined
) and the block (initialised with the function object).
"TDZ"?
Not in the sense of the temporal dead zone of a lexically declared variable (let
/const
/class
) that throws on referencing, no. But before the function declaration is encountered in the execution of the body, the function-scoped variable is undefined
(especially before the block), and you'll get an exception as well if you try to call it.
Just for reference: in ES6, the above-described behaviour was specified only for blocks in function scopes. Since ES7 the same applies to blocks in eval
and global scopes.