So, #3 appears to be the winner.
Given that, can we also agree that this is throws (or at least that the
delete does nothing):
eval ("let x=5; delete x;");
(bug https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1111 )
Allen
On Feb 17, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> I'm also fine with 3.
>
> On Mon Feb 17 2014 at 10:39:47 AM, Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Happy to concede to #3 on my end. Just wanted to be clear that it seems to
> be optimizing for future happiness vs. least surprising behavior (which isn't
> a bad thing).
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jorge Chamorro <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> On 17/02/2014, at 13:42, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> > On 15 February 2014 06:10, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Another consideration in the back of my mind is that there may be useful
> >>> to implementors to knowing that let/const/class declaration are never
> >>> dynamically added to a non-global environment.
> >>
> >> +lots, this should be front of mind.
> >>
> >> In a block, we want the bindings local to that block to be statically
> >> analyzable. We want no non-local mode effects. So, #3 still wins.
> >
> > Strongly seconded.
>
> And even thirded.
>
> --
> ( Jorge )();
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Martin
> 661.312.3853
> http://devsmash.com
> @jmar777
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
