Michael Haufe wrote: > Is it worth changing the name of a statement/expression/definition > who's labeled intuitiveness is debatable and which has been in > use since JavaScript 1.7? If compatibility is one of the goals > wouldn't this create more trouble than its worth?
Compatibility with JavaScript 1.7 is not nearly as important as compatibility with ES 3. It is not really a "will it break the web" question because while those features are syntax errors in IE they will not tend to be used on the web. Still, there would be no reason for a JavaScript(tm) implementation of a future ES not providing both "local" and "let" with "let" being a syntax extension (as it is now in ES 3 terms), and giving them both identical meaning (and "let" can be deprecated so it may be removed at some future date). Thus providing compatibility with exiting JavaScript 1.7 specific code. One question would be; if "local" is used to declare variables (with some specific scope) doesn't it then become a reserved word? And then, if an ES 3 script has used "local" as an Identifier doesn't it then find that Identifier causing a syntax error in a some future ES implementation? The alternative is interpreting "local" based on its context in the source code, but that has got to be harder than only seeing it as having one meaning. While "let" is the type of word that does not lend itself to being used as a variable name, "local" may have been used to name something that embodied that concept. I am quite happy with "let", but that is mostly because it is good enough for its job and short, where short is very appealing given the number of times I can expect to be typing it in the future. Richard Cornford. _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
