```
const x = nameof y
const y = 1;
```
`x` would have the value “y”. It would not matter if `y` were initialized or
had yet been reached during execution. It does not deviate from the purpose of
`let` or `const`, because you are not accessing the value of the identifier.
Also consider that this is legal ECMAScript in a module:
```
export { y }
const y = 1;
```
The binding for `y` exists within the same block scope, it just has not yet
been initialized. Exporting it via `export { y }`, closing over it via `() =>
y`, or accessing it via `nameof y` would all be the same. In all three cases
you are accessing the *binding* of `y`, not the *value* of `y`. Even in the `()
=> y` case, you don’t access the *value* of `y` until you execute the function.
From: guest271314 <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 3:57 PM
To: Ron Buckton <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for
> Sorry, I meant to say “not entirely correct”.
You have not yet confirmed if in fact the expected output is referencing a
variable declared using ```const``` on the current line _before_ initialization
_on the next line_.
That example appears to deviate from the purpose and usage of ```const```,
beyond the scope of ```nameof```, and if were implemented, a
```ReferenceError``` should _not_ be thrown when a ```const``` variable that
has yet to be initialized _on the next line_ is referred to _on the current
line_?
Aside from that example, the code which essentially already implements
```nameof``` should be able to be found in the code which implements
```ReferenceError``` relevant to ```const```.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 10:47 PM Ron Buckton
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Sorry, I meant to say “not entirely correct”.
From: Ron Buckton
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 3:03 PM
To: guest271314 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for
> At that point in the example code the identifer ```y``` does not exist.
That is not entirely incorrect. The identifier `y` exists, but its binding has
not been initialized, otherwise you couldn’t refer to y in this case:
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
