On 18 April 2012 19:13, Geoffrey Sneddon <[email protected]> wrote: > I've just had it pointed out to me that my original email made little > sense, so let's try again: > > const has historically been needed in non-strict/strict code for web > compatibility on non-IE code (typically either down to server-side UA > sniffing or just explicitly non-support of IE). IE still doesn't support > it, which may suggest it's not needed for compatibility any more, but as > far as I can tell removing it would break enough to make it infeasible. > > As such, we should spec it: likely block-scoped in modules, and > function-scoped otherwise. We should only really not spec it if we can get > everyone who currently supports it to drop it. >
IE has consts, use execScript with vbs. I think Andrea did a blog post on it: < http://webreflection.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/cow-javascript-define-php-like-function.html > The const keyword is a little freaky overall, Firefox seems to support it yet Opera (last time I checked) supports the keyword but doesn't perform a const operation.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
