Thanks for sharing. Are there any known, viable alternatives for decorators?
On 14 May 2015 at 21:55, Ron Buckton <[email protected]> wrote: > I proposed something similar to this among the folks investigating > decorators for ES7: > > > > https://github.com/jonathandturner/decorators/issues/17 > > > > In this case, it was for a `const function`, as a means to allow a > decorator on a function declaration, as adding the `const` (or `let`) would > introduce TDZ and set the right expectations for how decorators would be > executed. > > > > Ron > > > > *From:* es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of > *Alexander > Jones > *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:37 PM > *To:* Garrett Smith > *Cc:* Bergi; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: let function > > > > Good points. All the more reason to throw out declarations as statements > in favour of let/const/var, which we all have to understand well > anyway, for other types of variable. > > > > Cheers > > On Thursday, May 14, 2015, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/14/15, Alexander Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah, thanks for explaining! What about the Temporal Dead Zone of let, > > or const binding semantics, for those of us who are obsessive enough to > > desire that kind of thing everywhere? > > > Let a constructive discussion about this proposal take place. > > "The specification," can most reasonably be taken among programmers to > mean "the latest version of specification" not "draft specification" > or "proposal". Evangelists and standards geeks tend to miscall "draft" > "specification" to the misfortunate effect that it misleads developers > into believing that drafts are normative, final, etc. That's quite a > bit worse than the abrasiveness and confusion seen here, but hopefully > they can stop and a discussion can take place. > > http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-12 > > Because of these irreconcilable differences, the use of a > FunctionDeclaration as a Statement results in code that is not > reliably portable among implementations. It is recommended that > ECMAScript implementations either disallow this usage of > FunctionDeclaration or issue a warning when such a usage is > encountered. > > The decision for such wording probably came from discussions and time > constraints of getting ES5 done. The problem of FunctionDeclaration > arose from implementations in JScript (see "[MS-ES3EX]" and language > extensions in Spidermonkey and others. It progressed to misstatements > in presentations and books. For more on this, see "Named function > expressions demystified". > > > > On Thursday, May 14, 2015, Bergi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Alexander Jones schrieb: > >> > On Thursday, May 14, 2015, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> They can, in fact, be scoped in a for loop. > >> > > >> > >>> That's not what I see, in strict mode at least, which I assume most > >>> people > >>> consider de facto by now! > >>> > >>> From V8: > >>> > >>> SyntaxError: In strict mode code, functions can only be declared > at > >>> top > >>> level or immediately within another function. > >>> > >> > >> That's ES5. In ES6, function declarations are allowed in blocks - with > >> the > >> new block scope semantics. This was only possible as ES5 strict mode > held > >> that spot open so now it doesn't break anything :-) > >> Yes, it will need a while until people get accustomed to that. > >> > >> Bergi > >> _______________________________________________ > >> es-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >> > > > > > -- > Garrett > @xkit > ChordCycles.com > garretts.github.io > personx.tumblr.com > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
