That's a good point, "temp" would be a bad keyword.
Again, just throwing some things out there to see what kind of discussion comes about. My goal is to find a way that hand-crafted javascript (i.e., not cross-compiled asm.js) could potentially avoid GC and can be compiled without needing to be dynamically analyzed.
My needs are very specific, but certainly something that a lot of people are looking for.
And, more and more, everything eventually comes back to the need for types. So much can be done automatically once a variable can be determined statically to be a primitive type.
[>] Brian On 3/24/2016 9:29 AM, John Gardner wrote:
I fail to see how temp is bringing anything useful to ECMAScript that can't already be achieved using let and const declarations. Recall both are block-scoped, which means they should logically be freed from memory after executing exits their scope (assuming there're no lingering pointers). Furthermore, having two keywords that're abbreviations of "temporary" and "variable" would undoubtedly invoke confusion among users. Finally, the most practical reason to disallow a reserved identifier is the notion of breaking existing code. How many scripts do you envision have used the name temp as an identifier?
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
