On 30/01/2014, at 17:13, Brendan Eich wrote:
> John Barton wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> John Lenz wrote:
>>
>> Generally, I've always thought of:
>>
>> "if (x) ..." as equivalent to "if (x) { ... }"
>>
>>
>> let and const (and class) are block-scoped. {...} in your "if (x)
>> {...}" is a block. An unbraced consequent is not a block, and you
>> can't have a "conditional let binding".
>>
>> The restriction avoids nonsense such as
>>
>> let x = 0; { if (y) let x = 42; alert(x); }
>>
>> What pray tell is going on here, in your model?
>>
>>
>> I'm with John: the alert should say 0 and I can't see why that is not
>> obvious.
>
> Interesting!
>
> You don't want the alert to show undefined, so the extent of the inner
> binding in your model is the unbraced consequent of the "if".
>
> That is not "block scope" in any plain sense.
How about this?
let x= 0;
if (1) eval("let x= 42; alert(x);"); //Is this in its own block?
alert(x);
On 31/01/2014, at 03:11, Brendan Eich wrote:
> OMG LETS MAKE USELESS LETS EVERYWHERE LOLJSSUXZ0RZ! Um, no.
:-)
--
( Jorge )();
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
