On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Rick thanks but I wasn't strictly asking for solutions because I have one,
> I was rather pointing at the fact that there is no solution and by design
> we need to create garbage.
>
> Your last example talks itself ... why do we need to define another
> variable in that scope? That is annoying, imho ... I don't want define a
> `tmp` like variable per each const type I'd like to address down the road,
> you know what I mean?
>
> I cannot even drop that var, so that's a potential leak in the global
> scope/context if not loeaded through modules while I might want to define
> that constant globally (and maybe name-spaced, but that's not the issue
> here)
>
> IE11 ... I don't have it with me now, would this work nicely ? I think no
> :-(
>
> ```javascript
> let ES6_PROXY = true;
> try {
> new Proxy({},{});
> } catch(o_O) {
> ES6_PROXY = false;
> }
> const ES6_PROXY = ES6_PROXY;
> ```
>
It doesn't matter if I ran this in IE11 today or Firefox/Chrome/whatever
when those implementations are updated: let and const bindings don't allow
_redeclaration_ of bindings that already exist in that scope.
>
> So const are not as simple and straight forward to be defined as it is in
> C or others and because these have been defined on top of `var` hoisting
> behavior.
>
> ```C
>
> #ifdef WHATEVER
> static int const NAME = 1;#else
> static int const NAME = 0;
>
> #endif
>
> ```
>
> Thoughts?
>
It's an invalid comparison, unless you're saying you want ifdefs in JS.
This is an apples-to-apples comparison:
C:
if (1) {
static int const A_VAL = 1;
}
printf("%d", A_VAL);
// error: use of undeclared identifier 'A_VAL'
JS:
if (1) {
const A_VAL = 1;
}
console.log(A_VAL);
// 'A_VAL' is undefined
Rick
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
