Strict mode
===========

ECMAScript 5 提供開發者語法嚴格、語法受限的模式 (strict mode) ，會影響語法的使用但沒支援受限模式的瀏覽器一樣可以跑，只是行為有很大的可能會跟你想的不一樣。所以別太依賴受限模式，除非你做過功能性測試。另外這個模式可以混用在普通模式裡，你可以利用這個特性慢慢把舊的程式碼轉變成完全嚴謹和低變化性的狀態。

這個模式裡做了些語意上的修正:

1. 透過拋出錯誤的方式消除一些安靜的錯誤（意指不再靜默地忽略某些錯誤）
2. 修正會阻礙 JavaScript 引擎進行最佳化的錯誤: 相同的程式碼在嚴格模式有時候能運行得比非嚴格模式來的快
3. 禁止使用一些有可能被未來版本 ECMAScript 定義的語法

參考 過渡到嚴格模式 (en-US)，如果你希望將你的程式碼在 JavaScript 語法嚴格、語法受限下執行。

**備註：** Sometimes, you'll see the default, non-strict, mode referred to as "sloppy mode". This isn't an official term, but be aware of it, just in case.

用法
--

嚴格模式可以用於整份腳本或個別函數中。不要在封閉的大括弧內 `{}` 這樣做； 這麼做在上下文中是沒有效果的。`eval` 程式、`Function`、事件處理參數、傳入 `WindowTimers.setTimeout()` (en-US) 函數的字串都是整個腳本，開啟嚴格模式他也會如預期般運作。

### Strict mode for scripts

To invoke strict mode for an entire script, put the *exact* statement `"use strict";` (or `'use strict';`) before any other statements.


```js
// Whole-script strict mode syntax
"use strict";
var v = "Hi! I'm a strict mode script!";
```


This syntax has a trap that has already bitten a major site: it isn't possible to blindly concatenate non-conflicting scripts. Consider concatenating a strict mode script with a non-strict mode script: the entire concatenation looks strict! The inverse is also true: non-strict plus strict looks non-strict. Concatenation of strict mode scripts with each other is fine, and concatenation of non-strict mode scripts is fine. Only concatenating strict and non-strict scripts is problematic. It is thus recommended that you enable strict mode on a function-by-function basis (at least during the transition period).

You can also take the approach of wrapping the entire contents of a script in a function and having that outer function use strict mode. This eliminates the concatenation problem but it means that you have to explicitly export any global variables out of the function scope.

### Strict mode for functions

Likewise, to invoke strict mode for a function, put the *exact* statement `"use strict";` (or `'use strict';`) in the function's body before any other statements.


```js
function strict() {
  // Function-level strict mode syntax
  "use strict";
  function nested() {
    return "And so am I!";
  }
  return "Hi! I'm a strict mode function! " + nested();
}
function notStrict() {
  return "I'm not strict.";
}
```

Changes in strict mode
----------------------

Strict mode changes both syntax and runtime behavior. Changes generally fall into these categories: changes converting mistakes into errors (as syntax errors or at runtime), changes simplifying how the particular variable for a given use of a name is computed, changes simplifying `eval` and `arguments`, changes making it easier to write "secure" JavaScript, and changes anticipating future ECMAScript evolution.

### Converting mistakes into errors

Strict mode changes some previously-accepted mistakes into errors. JavaScript was designed to be easy for novice developers, and sometimes it gives operations which should be errors non-error semantics. Sometimes this fixes the immediate problem, but sometimes this creates worse problems in the future. Strict mode treats these mistakes as errors so that they're discovered and promptly fixed.

First, strict mode makes it impossible to accidentally create global variables. In normal JavaScript mistyping a variable in an assignment creates a new property on the global object and continues to "work" (although future failure is possible: likely, in modern JavaScript). Assignments which would accidentally create global variables instead throw in strict mode:


```js
"use strict";
// Assuming a global variable mistypedVariable exists
mistypeVariable = 17; // this line throws a ReferenceError due to the
// misspelling of variable
```


Second, strict mode makes assignments which would otherwise silently fail to throw an exception. For example, `NaN` is a non-writable global variable. In normal code assigning to `NaN` does nothing; the developer receives no failure feedback. In strict mode assigning to `NaN` throws an exception. Any assignment that silently fails in normal code (assignment to a non-writable global or property, assignment to a getter-only property, assignment to a new property on a non-extensible object) will throw in strict mode:


```js
"use strict";

// Assignment to a non-writable global
var undefined = 5; // throws a TypeError
var Infinity = 5; // throws a TypeError

// Assignment to a non-writable property
var obj1 = {};
Object.defineProperty(obj1, "x", { value: 42, writable: false });
obj1.x = 9; // throws a TypeError

// Assignment to a getter-only property
var obj2 = {
  get x() {
    return 17;
  },
};
obj2.x = 5; // throws a TypeError

// Assignment to a new property on a non-extensible object
var fixed = {};
Object.preventExtensions(fixed);
fixed.newProp = "ohai"; // throws a TypeError
```


Third, strict mode makes attempts to delete undeletable properties throw (where before the attempt would simply have no effect):


```js
"use strict";
delete Object.prototype; // throws a TypeError
```


Fourth, strict mode prior to Gecko 34 requires that all properties named in an object literal be unique. Normal code may duplicate property names, with the last one determining the property's value. But since only the last one does anything, the duplication is simply a vector for bugs, if the code is modified to change the property value other than by changing the last instance. Duplicate property names are a syntax error in strict mode:

**備註：** This is no longer the case in ECMAScript 2015 (Firefox bug 1041128).


```js
"use strict";
var o = { p: 1, p: 2 }; // !!! syntax error
```


Fifth, strict mode requires that function parameter names be unique. In normal code the last duplicated argument hides previous identically-named arguments. Those previous arguments remain available through `arguments[i]`, so they're not completely inaccessible. Still, this hiding makes little sense and is probably undesirable (it might hide a typo, for example), so in strict mode duplicate argument names are a syntax error:


```js
function sum(a, a, c) {
  // !!! syntax error
  "use strict";
  return a + b + c; // wrong if this code ran
}
```


Sixth, strict mode in ECMAScript 5 forbids octal syntax. Octal syntax isn't part of ECMAScript 5, but it's supported in all browsers by prefixing the octal number with a zero: `0644 === 420` and `"\045" === "%"`. In ECMAScript 2015 Octal number is supported by prefixing a number with "`0`o". i.e.


```js
var a = 0o10; // ES2015: Octal
```


Novice developers sometimes believe a leading zero prefix has no semantic meaning, so they use it as an alignment device — but this changes the number's meaning! The leading zero syntax for octals is rarely useful and can be mistakenly used, so strict mode makes it a syntax error:


```js
"use strict";
var sum =
  015 + // !!! syntax error
  197 +
  142;

var sumWithOctal = 0o10 + 8;
console.log(sumWithOctal); // 16
```


Seventh, strict mode in ECMAScript 2015 forbids setting properties on primitive (en-US) values. Without strict mode, setting properties is simply ignored (no-op), with strict mode, however, a `TypeError` (en-US) is thrown.


```js
(function () {
  "use strict";

  false.true = ""; // TypeError
  (14).sailing = "home"; // TypeError
  "with".you = "far away"; // TypeError
})();
```

### Simplifying variable uses

Strict mode simplifies how variable names map to particular variable definitions in the code. Many compiler optimizations rely on the ability to say that variable *X* is stored in *that* location: this is critical to fully optimizing JavaScript code. JavaScript sometimes makes this basic mapping of name to variable definition in the code impossible to perform until runtime. Strict mode removes most cases where this happens, so the compiler can better optimize strict mode code.

First, strict mode prohibits `with`. The problem with `with` is that any name inside the block might map either to a property of the object passed to it, or to a variable in surrounding (or even global) scope, at runtime: it's impossible to know which beforehand. Strict mode makes `with` a syntax error, so there's no chance for a name in a `with` to refer to an unknown location at runtime:


```js
"use strict";
var x = 17;
with (obj) {
  // !!! syntax error
  // If this weren't strict mode, would this be var x, or
  // would it instead be obj.x? It's impossible in general
  // to say without running the code, so the name can't be
  // optimized.
  x;
}
```


The simple alternative of assigning the object to a short name variable, then accessing the corresponding property on that variable, stands ready to replace `with`.

Second, `eval` of strict mode code does not introduce new variables into the surrounding scope. In normal code `eval("var x;")` introduces a variable `x` into the surrounding function or the global scope. This means that, in general, in a function containing a call to `eval` every name not referring to an argument or local variable must be mapped to a particular definition at runtime (because that `eval` might have introduced a new variable that would hide the outer variable). In strict mode `eval` creates variables only for the code being evaluated, so `eval` can't affect whether a name refers to an outer variable or some local variable:


```js
var x = 17;
var evalX = eval("'use strict'; var x = 42; x;");
console.assert(x === 17);
console.assert(evalX === 42);
```


Relatedly, if the function `eval` is invoked by an expression of the form `eval(...)` in strict mode code, the code will be evaluated as strict mode code. The code may explicitly invoke strict mode, but it's unnecessary to do so.


```js
function strict1(str) {
  "use strict";
  return eval(str); // str will be treated as strict mode code
}
function strict2(f, str) {
  "use strict";
  return f(str); // not eval(...): str is strict if and only
  // if it invokes strict mode
}
function nonstrict(str) {
  return eval(str); // str is strict if and only
  // if it invokes strict mode
}

strict1("'Strict mode code!'");
strict1("'use strict'; 'Strict mode code!'");
strict2(eval, "'Non-strict code.'");
strict2(eval, "'use strict'; 'Strict mode code!'");
nonstrict("'Non-strict code.'");
nonstrict("'use strict'; 'Strict mode code!'");
```


Thus names in strict mode `eval` code behave identically to names in strict mode code not being evaluated as the result of `eval`.

Third, strict mode forbids deleting plain names. `delete name` in strict mode is a syntax error:


```js
"use strict";

var x;
delete x; // !!! syntax error

eval("var y; delete y;"); // !!! syntax error
```

### Making `eval` and `arguments` simpler

Strict mode makes `arguments` and `eval` less bizarrely magical. Both involve a considerable amount of magical behavior in normal code: `eval` to add or remove bindings and to change binding values, and `arguments` by its indexed properties aliasing named arguments. Strict mode makes great strides toward treating `eval` and `arguments` as keywords, although full fixes will not come until a future edition of ECMAScript.

First, the names `eval` and `arguments` can't be bound or assigned in language syntax. All these attempts to do so are syntax errors:


```js
"use strict";
eval = 17;
arguments++;
++eval;
var obj = { set p(arguments) {} };
var eval;
try {
} catch (arguments) {}
function x(eval) {}
function arguments() {}
var y = function eval() {};
var f = new Function("arguments", "'use strict'; return 17;");
```


Second, strict mode code doesn't alias properties of `arguments` objects created within it. In normal code within a function whose first argument is `arg`, setting `arg` also sets `arguments[0]`, and vice versa (unless no arguments were provided or `arguments[0]` is deleted). `arguments` objects for strict mode functions store the original arguments when the function was invoked. `arguments[i]` does not track the value of the corresponding named argument, nor does a named argument track the value in the corresponding `arguments[i]`.


```js
function f(a) {
  "use strict";
  a = 42;
  return [a, arguments[0]];
}
var pair = f(17);
console.assert(pair[0] === 42);
console.assert(pair[1] === 17);
```


Third, `arguments.callee` is no longer supported. In normal code `arguments.callee` refers to the enclosing function. This use case is weak: simply name the enclosing function! Moreover, `arguments.callee` substantially hinders optimizations like inlining functions, because it must be made possible to provide a reference to the un-inlined function if `arguments.callee` is accessed. `arguments.callee` for strict mode functions is a non-deletable property which throws when set or retrieved:


```js
"use strict";
var f = function () {
  return arguments.callee;
};
f(); // throws a TypeError
```

### "Securing" JavaScript

Strict mode makes it easier to write "secure" JavaScript. Some websites now provide ways for users to write JavaScript which will be run by the website *on behalf of other users*. JavaScript in browsers can access the user's private information, so such JavaScript must be partially transformed before it is run, to censor access to forbidden functionality. JavaScript's flexibility makes it effectively impossible to do this without many runtime checks. Certain language functions are so pervasive that performing runtime checks has considerable performance cost. A few strict mode tweaks, plus requiring that user-submitted JavaScript be strict mode code and that it be invoked in a certain manner, substantially reduce the need for those runtime checks.

First, the value passed as `this` to a function in strict mode is not forced into being an object (a.k.a. "boxed"). For a normal function, `this` is always an object: either the provided object if called with an object-valued `this`; the value, boxed, if called with a Boolean, string, or number `this`; or the global object if called with an `undefined` or `null` `this`. (Use `call`, `apply`, or `bind` to specify a particular `this`.) Not only is automatic boxing a performance cost, but exposing the global object in browsers is a security hazard, because the global object provides access to functionality that "secure" JavaScript environments must restrict. Thus for a strict mode function, the specified `this` is not boxed into an object, and if unspecified, `this` will be `undefined`:


```js
"use strict";
function fun() {
  return this;
}
console.assert(fun() === undefined);
console.assert(fun.call(2) === 2);
console.assert(fun.apply(null) === null);
console.assert(fun.call(undefined) === undefined);
console.assert(fun.bind(true)() === true);
```


That means, among other things, that in browsers it's no longer possible to reference the `window` object through `this` inside a strict mode function.

Second, in strict mode it's no longer possible to "walk" the JavaScript stack via commonly-implemented extensions to ECMAScript. In normal code with these extensions, when a function `fun` is in the middle of being called, `fun.caller` is the function that most recently called `fun`, and `fun.arguments` is the `arguments` for that invocation of `fun`. Both extensions are problematic for "secure" JavaScript, because they allow "secured" code to access "privileged" functions and their (potentially unsecured) arguments. If `fun` is in strict mode, both `fun.caller` and `fun.arguments` are non-deletable properties which throw when set or retrieved:


```js
function restricted() {
  "use strict";
  restricted.caller; // throws a TypeError
  restricted.arguments; // throws a TypeError
}
function privilegedInvoker() {
  return restricted();
}
privilegedInvoker();
```


Third, `arguments` for strict mode functions no longer provide access to the corresponding function call's variables. In some old ECMAScript implementations `arguments.caller` was an object whose properties aliased variables in that function. This is a security hazard because it breaks the ability to hide privileged values via function abstraction; it also precludes most optimizations. For these reasons no recent browsers implement it. Yet because of its historical functionality, `arguments.caller` for a strict mode function is also a non-deletable property which throws when set or retrieved:


```js
"use strict";
function fun(a, b) {
  "use strict";
  var v = 12;
  return arguments.caller; // throws a TypeError
}
fun(1, 2); // doesn't expose v (or a or b)
```

### Paving the way for future ECMAScript versions

Future ECMAScript versions will likely introduce new syntax, and strict mode in ECMAScript 5 applies some restrictions to ease the transition. It will be easier to make some changes if the foundations of those changes are prohibited in strict mode.

First, in strict mode a short list of identifiers become reserved keywords. These words are `implements`, `interface`, `let`, `package`, `private`, `protected`, `public`, `static`, and `yield`. In strict mode, then, you can't name or use variables or arguments with these names.


```js
function package(protected) {
  // !!!
  "use strict";
  var implements; // !!!

  // !!!
  interface: while (true) {
    break interface; // !!!
  }

  function private() {} // !!!
}
function fun(static) {
  "use strict";
} // !!!
```


Two Mozilla-specific caveats: First, if your code is JavaScript 1.7 or greater (for example in chrome code or when using the right `<script type="">`) and is strict mode code, `let` and `yield` have the functionality they've had since those keywords were first introduced. But strict mode code on the web, loaded with `<script src="">` or `<script>...</script>`, won't be able to use `let`/`yield` as identifiers. Second, while ES5 unconditionally reserves the words `class`, `enum`, `export`, `extends`, `import`, and `super`, before Firefox 5 Mozilla reserved them only in strict mode.

Second, strict mode prohibits function statements not at the top level of a script or function. In normal code in browsers, function statements are permitted "everywhere". *This is not part of ES5 (or even ES3)!* It's an extension with incompatible semantics in different browsers. Future ECMAScript editions will hopefully specify new semantics for function statements not at the top level of a script or function. Prohibiting such function statements in strict mode "clears the deck" for specification in a future ECMAScript release:


```js
"use strict";
if (true) {
  function f() {} // !!! syntax error
  f();
}

for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
  function f2() {} // !!! syntax error
  f2();
}

function baz() {
  // kosher
  function eit() {} // also kosher
}
```


This prohibition isn't strict mode proper, because such function statements are an extension of basic ES5. But it is the recommendation of the ECMAScript committee, and browsers will implement it.

Strict mode in browsers
-----------------------

The major browsers now implement strict mode. However, don't blindly depend on it since there still are numerous Browser versions used in the wild that only have partial support for strict mode or do not support it at all (e.g. Internet Explorer below version 10!). *Strict mode changes semantics.* Relying on those changes will cause mistakes and errors in browsers which don't implement strict mode. Exercise caution in using strict mode, and back up reliance on strict mode with feature tests that check whether relevant parts of strict mode are implemented. Finally, make sure to *test your code in browsers that do and don't support strict mode*. If you test only in browsers that don't support strict mode, you're very likely to have problems in browsers that do, and vice versa.

See also
--------

* Where's Walden? » New ES5 strict mode support: now with poison pills!
* Where's Walden? » New ES5 strict mode requirement: function statements not at top level of a program or function are prohibited
* Where's Walden? » New ES5 strict mode support: new vars created by strict mode eval code are local to that code only
* JavaScript "use strict" tutorial for beginners.
* John Resig - ECMAScript 5 Strict Mode, JSON, and More
* ECMA-262-5 in detail. Chapter 2. Strict Mode.
* Strict mode compatibility table
* Transitioning to strict mode (en-US)