The spidermonkey REPL shell has a special cut-out for this:
js> throw 0; let x;
uncaught exception: 0
(Unable to print stack trace)
Warning: According to the standard, after the above exception,
Warning: the global bindings should be permanently uninitialized.
Warning: We have non-standard-ly initialized them to `undefined`for you.
Warning: This nicety only happens in the JS shell.
It looks like the Firefox console does something similar, just silently.
The Chrome console and Node REPLs wedge you permanently, from my brief
testing. I don't have anything else within easy reach to test on.
Separately, I ran into it with a JS debugger REPL that also runs under
the spidermonkey shell -- I have a 'run' command that reruns the
toplevel script, which fails if you have any toplevel let/const. And the
above cutout doesn't help; there is no error.
The bindings are created and exist, they're just set to undefined. So if
you repeat the above line, you'll get
typein:3:1 SyntaxError: redeclaration of let x
Stack:
@typein:3:1
These days, if I have a script that I might want to debug with my hacky
debugger REPL, I'm careful to use only 'var' at the toplevel.
All REPLs and REPL-like things run into this. Perhaps it would be useful
to agree on a common behavior? Or at least share coping strategies.
On 11/28/2017 11:59 AM, Isiah Meadows wrote:
And this is why I use `var` instead of `let` in REPLs. They're doing
what they're supposed to do; it's just unintuitive.
As a secondary proposal, I feel `let`/`const` in scripts should be
allowed to shadow existing globals at the top level *provided* they
are not declared in the same script. It'd solve the globals issue as
well as not require the parser to make calls to the runtime
environment. Of course, this means engines can't assume global `const`
is immutable, but they already do similar global checks, anyways (like
if the variable was not defined in that script).
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 14:31 Joseph <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Re "x is irreparably hosed in your REPL"; you can still use it in
subscope, eg <{let x=1;console.log(1)}>.
On 29 November 2017 at 01:30, T.J. Crowder
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Joseph <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> You can still do `{x}`.
Can you expand on that? It doesn't seem to me you can. I mean,
if even `x = 42;` won't work (https://jsfiddle.net/tw3ohac6/),
I fail to see how anything else using `x` would work,
including `{x}` (https://jsfiddle.net/tw3ohac6/1/,
https://jsfiddle.net/tw3ohac6/2/). `x` is permanently in the
TDZ as far as I can tell.
-- T.J. Crowder
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
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
