David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > Mark S. Miller wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> If we want to avoid the read-barrier, we should not hoist either const > >>> or let. If we are to consider not hoisting const, WE NEED TO DECIDE > >>> THIS NOW, before ES3.1 mandates a hoisting const. > >> > >> A few messages back you nicely repeated the > >> least-concepts/least-astonishment/most-symmetric case for hoisting to block > >> top that has carried so far. I don't see how we can backtrack here. We'll > >> flail hard. > >> [...other good stuff snipped...] > > > > I'm convinced; thanks. I agree it's too late to consider non-hoisting > > const even if we come to regret it. Given that const hoists, let > > declarations must as well, and we can argue about let-read-barriers > > and repeated declarations later. > > I disagree with this reasoning. > > The reason for making 'const' hoist to the top of the enclosing block, > AFAIR, was consistency with function declarations. However, there are > good reasons why 'const'/'let' and function declarations should be > treated differently: > > <snip>
I think you're forgetting about |var| hoisting. |const| and |let| should be compared with |var|, not just function declarations. And if |var| hoists, yet |const| and |let| do not, it's inconsistent. Honestly though, this is an inconsistency I could live with. _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
