On Aug 21, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Peter Michaux wrote: > Dave Herman wrote: > >> We all know about the benefits of specification by desugaring. (I do >> know a thing or two about macros, ya know.) But desugaring only works >> when the feature you want really *does* layer properly on top of an >> existing feature. The simple reason we haven't specified `let' as a >> desugaring into `function' is because we want them to behave >> differently. > > Who is "we"?
That is clear from context: "we haven't specified ...". > Brendan seemed to invite discussion about the semantics of let. I was trying to get comments from users of JS1.7's let forms. The keyword argument was not interesting to me. But this is es-discuss, we can talk about whatever we want to do with ECMAScript futures. > If the committee has reached consensus then those outside the > committee > could save time and keystrokes and focus on other things where > there is > need. Rather than change the topic to complain about something that hasn't happened (no ES4 spec yet), why not respond to the substantive point: let != function-expression-call? > How do outsiders know which proposals have reached committee > consensus? I said that many on the committee were in favor, notionally and in some details, of much of JS1.7's "convenience features", and some beyond: let as new var destructuring assignment and binding forms generators (modulo keyword issue) expression closures spread operator rest parameters optional parameters So not everything is a blank slate in TC39 for ES-Harmony, nor should it be. /be _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
