On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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. > Yeah, that's one of the things that confused me. Brendan specified instance properties, which made me think he was referring to an error that might occur prior to actually evaluating the code. - Russ
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
