Yes. I proposed it and plan to do so again. Likewise with const classes. In both cases, it imposes additional tamper-proofing restrictions along the lines of the StrongScript proposal in order to support writing defensively consistent abstractions.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
