not, in fact, in a backward compatible way, unless transpiled. On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote:
> They can, in fact, be scoped in a for loop. > > > > *From:* es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of > *Andrea > Giammarchi > *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 14:53 > *To:* Kevin Smith > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: let function > > > > I guess 'cause that cannot be scoped, let's say in a for loop ... but > yeah, I think that's not the most needed thing in the language right now, > yet another shortcut with double reserved words one after the other > > > > Regards > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why not use a function declaration instead? > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:37 PM Alexander Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Propose adding support for > > > > let function foo() {}; > > > > which would have the equivalence of: > > > > let foo = function foo() {}; > > > > The idea is to support the normal scoping of let, but without forcing you > to repeat yourself when naming the function, whilst still having the > function's name property be set. > > > > This would trivially extend to const and var. Also, possibly class. > > > > Thanks > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
