On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >> water under the bridge... > > Sure, but it matters for distinguishing my "inconsistent" advocacy of > removing the hated initialiser, vs. keeping destructuring in for-in LHS. > > Really, I'm ok with not supporting destructuring for-in LHS. That will > require more spec work, but so does killing the initialiser for let and const > as you noted. So, are we agreed? No initialiser, no for-in destructuring > (with or without a declaring keyword)?
sounds good to me, see other message > > /be > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
