According to the current draft spec text 'let'/'const' are allowed in the
statement list of a switch case, but contribute to the block scope of the outer
block. This can lead to some confusing situations:
function(x) {
do {
switch(x) {
case 0:
return x;
case 1:
let x = 'let';
}
} while (foo());
}
The 'x' in 'case 0' here will bind to the later 'let x', but depending on which
case executes first, this may or may not trigger an error on accessing x before
it is defined. This is the only place in the language where a reference to a
let binding declared in the same block scope as the reference cannot be
statically understood to be a valid vs. invalid read. This is both likely to
cause confusion for developers, and adds implementation complexity.
There's an argument to be made that switch case StatementLists should not be
allowed to include Declarations. This would make the code above a syntax
error, and require putting {} around the case if 'let'/'const' were needed.
This also aligns with all other occurrences of nested statements that are not
surrounded by {} in the grammar, for example, 'if(true) let x = 3'. Current
Chrome builds appear to follow this approach, reporting that the 'let' in the
initial code sample above appears in an 'unprotected statement context'.
Luke
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
