On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think Ingvar bring up an interesting point. While this usage on "let" >> feels very natural to those of us who have had exposure to functional >> languages that use it in this manner, it may not be nearly so intuitive to >> the millions of "script writers" who will be exposed to it. (And, arguably, >> there are probably still quite a few more former BASIC programmers out >> there, to whom "let" means assignment, then there are Scheme and ML >> programmers.) In addition, while I can't personally speak to it, I can also >> see where there may be understandability issues for non-native English >> speakers. >> >> I think it is a fine idea to consider usability issues like this as we work >> towards defining ES-Harmony. > > Perl uses "my". Short. Implies scope. > > http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/my.html > >> Allen > > - Sam Ruby
If we really are going by the plain English meaning, I'd say 'my' implies possession, not scope, and is more appropriate to describe the relation between an instance variable and its object than that of a lexical variable and its scope. 'local' would be fine, except that ES already has a kind of local variable. 'var'-declared variables are function-local. If you search for "javascript local variable," you will get plenty of results, and all of them will be about 'var.' Allen's BASIC point is a good one, and all I can muster in response is a (mostly) tongue-in-cheek reply: BASIC programmers who go on to learn other languages first find it necessary to unlearn BASIC. -Jon _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
