On Jan 3, 2008 7:01 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Igor Bukanov wrote:
>
> > On 03/01/2008, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> let function f() { };
> >>
> >> I missed that if so -- did you see this in the wiki, a trac ticket,
> >> or another doc?
> >
> > I have not seen this, I just assumed for some reasons that syntax for
> > let blocks and declarations is shared.
>
> Completely reasonable, both for implementations and users, IMHO.
> Lars, what do you think?I doubt this simplifies the life for implementations even the tiniest bit, so let's talk use cases... I'm fairly sure that in 20 years of Scheme programming I've not felt the need to use letrec as a nested expression (except in a context where we'd have a block in ES4, eg under the control of "if"). I also think the main use case for the expression form of "let" is in very simple expression functions where there won't be a credible need for nested functions. Ergo I think "let (function f() ...) ..." has doubtful utility. Same argument for "let (const ...) ..." really; the use cases for "let (...) ..." are unlikely to call for constant bindings. So my vote is "no". --lars > > /be > > > _______________________________________________ > Es4-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss > _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
