Another way: Instead of using `let` at all, why not creating a function and
pass it your `a`, `b` and `c` as arguments.
Nowadays I try to program without explicitly declaring any variables, hence my
suggestion.
```js
(function (a, b, c) {
}(2))
```
If you can post a more concrete example I would give you a more concrete
suggestion to what I mean.
Cheers
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Apart from complicating the engine and the grammar - what advantage does the
> second version have over the first one? Why do you prefer it to the first
> one? (Genuinely asking)
>
> I'm also not aware of any other languages that provide this (although that's
> not a huge issue).
>
>> On Jun 18, 2015, at 05:27, Kyle Simpson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to ask if there's anyone on TC39 that would be willing to champion
>> a proposal to add the let-block (let-statement) syntax?
>>
>> I currently write my block-scoped declarations as:
>>
>> ```js
>> { let a = 2, b, c;
>> // ..
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> I do this because I want to be in the habit of always putting my `let`
>> declarations at the top of blocks to avoid TDZ hazards. However, Firefox has
>> long had the alternate let-block/statement syntax, which I prefer:
>>
>> ```js
>> let (a = 2, b, c) {
>> // ..
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> Would there be support to consider such a proposal?
>>
>> Side note: I'd also be in favor of a `const (a = 2) { .. }` form, if the
>> symmetry was appealing.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
