On Feb 5, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> if(a) {
> function b(){ }
> }
>
> A block can contain statements. A statement can't start with the
> function keyword.
>
> Mozilla's Core JavaScript guide explains that of |b| should be
> evaluated as a functionExpression, but this isn't right.
> Source:
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/
> Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Functions#Conditionally_defining_a_funct
> ion
That doc is wrong. Wiki-elves, sigh.
SpiderMonkey has for about a decade implemented three kinds of
function forms: definitions, expressions, and statements. This is an
example of the last -- it's a function definition, syntactically,
except produced as a child of another statement, possibly even a
block -- a position which the ES3 grammar cannot produce a function
definition. Only if control flow reaches the function statement does
it bind its name.
This is an extension allowed by ES3 chapter 16.
> No imlementations I know throw a SyntaxError; instead, the behavior is
> implementation-specific.
Sure -- you knew that already by reading ES3, right? The problem with
standardizing is diverting effort from other tasks, and then forging
agreement on what function statements should mean. In IE, and IIRC
Opera based solely on IE, they are function definitions -- they
unconditionally bind their names on entry to the parent execution
context. That seems like a mistake, but it's hard to tell given other
IE bugs to do with named function forms (you know the one I mean well).
/be
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
