> What does the *spec* say should happen in that situation? It would be a TDZ error, rather than `undefined`, in a real implementation of block scoping + ES6 modules. The ordering still means that `A` won't exist when `class B extends A` runs.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:00 AM, T.J. Crowder < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'll point out that Babel doesn't follow spec perfectly because it can't >> transpile the bindings correctly in the case of synchronously executed code >> with circular dependencies. That's a CommonJS limitation that Babel can't >> work around any more than it already does. >> > I was wondering about that. Greg, re your example where you said: > > In the latest Babel the above code fails to run on the first line of >> app.js (at the time it attempts to execute `_inherits(B, _A);`.). This is >> because "A" is undefined in module b.js due to the circular dependency. In >> this case Babel basically executed code in the incorrect order for this to >> be able to work. > > > What does the *spec* say should happen in that situation? (You've clearly > been into it in some detail.) As opposed to what Babel does, since of > course Babel while excellent is working with some limitations...? > > -- T.J. Crowder >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
