> > function-in-block does not have the same semantics as the proposed "let > function". It hoists, thus has no TDZ, and appears to preclude a reasonable > decorator syntax behaviour, >
But that would not fix the decorator/function problem. Specifically, we would not want to have a situation where "let" functions are decorable but function declarations are not. > and it has no provisions for const binding, i.e. "const function". > A "const function" syntax was proposed during ES6 development and might still be an option.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
