On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
> We need to overcome at least one TC39er who values
> "requiring an error for"
>
> use-before-init for instance properties, perhaps only if const or guarded, so
> (I hope) we can defer those without being hostile to them in the future.
> Hope it was clear the first time...
>
I think that the current "maximal minimal" proposal is quite future friendly
WRT any future hoisting variants . Presumably any new alternative hoisting
semantics for class declarations would only be observable in that some things
that had been a runtime (or possible early) error under the current proposal
might no longer be errors. Defining a new non-error semantics for what was
perviously an error condition is usually a safe change.
> I'll admit I was a little confused. Makes sense now. To be clear, you would
> be referring to:
>
> let foo = new Foo();
under the current proposal the above is also an error, because Foo is not yet
initialized. You would never get to the next statment.
> foo.fail(); //this should be an error
>
> class Foo {
> fail(){
> alert("This alert won't happen.");
> }
>
> success(){
> alert("This should be fine");
> }
> }
>
> let foo2 = new Foo();
> foo2.success(); //would work fine
>
> and by error you mean before the code is actually evaluated?
>
> - Russ
>
>
>
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
