I took him to mean "please support const or let" - for sure! :-) /be
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4 December 2013 11:03, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: >> Olov did write "because val leaks to the outer scope". That's a reason for >> the convenience of >> >> if (let x = ...) { /* x in scope here */ } >> >> (or const), vs. >> >> { let x = ...; if (x) { /* ... */ } } >> >> Braces count, this is winning in C++. > > Yes, see the last sentence of my reply. What I (and presumably Axel) > was puzzled about is why Olov said that he was forced to use 'let' > instead of 'const'. > > /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
