On Mar 20, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Tue 20 Mar 2012 16:45, Andy Wingo <[email protected]> writes:
Your original post doesn't seem to have made it to the discussion list. > >> Unifying the specifications of let and const in the latest draft means >> that now, const statements can have no initializer. Is that intended? > > Of course, after sending this mail, I find: > > Static Semantics: Early Errors > LexicalBinding : BindingIdentifier > > It is a Syntax Error if the BindingIdentifier if IsConstantDeclaration of > the LexicalDeclaration containing > this production is true. there is a typo in that. "if the BindingIdentifier" should be deleted > > Some of the const strangeness is still there though. It's not > necessarily the case that the value of the const is either nothing (in > which case you get a TDZ error) or the result of the initializer -- > anything else that executes before the const could set it. No, because 10.2.1.1.3 would throw on any attempt to assign to a immutable binding created for a const (see 10.5.3, 11.a.ii.1. > > So a revised ignorant suggestion on my part: > >> disallow assignment to const variables outside an initializer they are, dynamically. Not all variable references are statically resolvable. Were there any other issues in the original post? bugs.ecmasript.org is probably a better place for reporting these shorts of issues. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
