I'm astonished that you interpreted my text in such a weird
way! That's completely foreign to JavaScript!
var is always unconditional in JavaScript. An if() before a
declaration doesn't make the declaration conditional.
The var takes effect long before you reach that if(). It takes
effect before you enter the scope in which the variable resides.
You can consider the declaration glued to the opening brace of
that scope. Or better, glued to both braces and stretched between
them.
The assignment, on the other hand, stays in place and is
conditional. But only the assignment.
With your surprising interpretation things would be much worse
than what your examples suggest. Much worse. Consider assigning
to the unpredictable variable:
function Outer()
{
var Test = 1;
function Inner()
{
if (Unknown)
var Test = 2; // Weird conditional declaration
// Many
// lines
// of
// code
Test = 3; // Semantics totally unpredictable
}
}
Is the outer Test set to three, or has an inner Test been
created that can take the value? Every program would become
impossible to understand, an unintelligible mess.
With my subject line "surprising semantics" I didn't mean to
advocate more surprises, I wanted less!
I assumed that ES3.1 and ES4 declarations would work like
ES3 declarations do: The declaration spans the entire scope
from before you enter the scope and throughout. The value
is unassigned (undefined) until you reach an assignment.
I took it for granted that making it constant and/or giving it
a type would follow the same pattern. The name gets associated
with the constantness and/or type before you enter the scope,
and it's in effect throughout.
In your examples with dual scopes, the result depends on whether
you mean that the inner c is bound to the outer scope or the
inner. If it's the outer you have conflicting, irreconcilable
bindings that collide before you enter that outer scope, a clear
declaration error. If it's the inner, then the inner declaration
shadows the outer, so the value can be unassigned or 37.
Regarding the plethora of ways to define things, by including
or excluding "let" you simply change which one of two possible
scope opening braces the declaration is glued to for the purpose
of name visibility. You get the same effect if you just move the
declaration to that spot yourself, without moving the assignment.
By including or excluding "let" you're simply telling the compiler
where you want this move to go.
Ingvar
Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> We've been down this road before, and the arguments you present have been
> hashed out over years. This approach doesn't work. Read the archives of the
> ES4 group.
>
> The problem is that you then get a plethora of ways to define things:
>
> var
> const
> function
> type
> namespace
> let
> let const
> let function
> let type
> let namespace
>
> Furthermore, some of them don't make sense (such as "function" without "let")
> because they can conditionally capture variables that may not even exist.
>
> The example you give of conditional definitions:
>
> if (foo) {
> const c = 37;
> } else {
> const c = "abc";
> }
> ... do something with c ...
>
> is particularly disruptive. You must then support conditional holes:
>
> // outer scope
> function c() ...;
>
> // inner scope
> {
> if (foo) {
> const c = 37;
> }
> ... c can be either 37 or the outer scope function here ...
> }
>
>
> It gets worse:
>
> // outer scope
> function c() ...;
>
> // inner scope
> {
> function f() {
> return c;
> }
> a = f();
> if (foo) {
> const c = 37;
> }
> b = f();
> ... just what do a and b hold here? Was f's captured variable rebound by
> the if statement? ...
> }
>
>
> Also consider:
>
> for (i = 0; i < foo.length; i++) {
> const v = foo[i];
> }
>
> You'll catch everyone off-guard if you make folks do a let const instead of a
> const here.
>
>
> In E4 it gets worse still because c can have a type:
>
> type c = ...
> {
> if (foo) {
> const c:Number = 37;
> } else if (bar) {
> var c:String = "abc";
> }
> }
> ... do something with c, which is either a type, a constant, or a variable,
> and can be statically typed as either a Number or a String ...
>
> const d:c = ... // Conditional definition requires variable types to be
> evaluated at run-time, which is not somewhere we want to go in the first
> version
>
> I don't know of anyone here who wants to support something like that.
>
> Waldemar
>
>
> Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
>> These are some impressions looking at what I expect from the
>> language, and how some things in the specification can cause
>> confusion.
>>
>> I would have contributed here during the discussions, but I
>> discovered the mailing lists just a couple of days ago.
>>
>> I expect the compiler's interpretation of program-code text
>> to be close to my intuitive understanding of what the text
>> says. It's very unfortunate if keywords have unexpected
>> meanings that cause mysterious side effects.
>>
>> If I learn that ECMAScript will let me change my var(iables)
>> into const(ants) I expect this to turn them into constants, in
>> the sense that trying to change their value will be considered
>> an error. It's very disappointing that by default they are
>> instead defined to have the baffling and mysterious behavior
>> of silently ignoring an attempt to change them, acting as if
>> no error had occurred.
>>
>> You'll have to keep this oddity in mind at all times, and even
>> then errors related to this will sometimes cause symptoms to
>> appear far from where the error is, costing quite some time
>> to explore. Why doesn't my program change its behavior even
>> though I'm provoking changes? Where in this big program's
>> complicated sequence of events is the change silently, secretly
>> lost?
>>
>> If instead you use var, at least the problems that can come
>> from this will tend to give symptoms closely connected to the
>> incorrect change in the value.
>>
>> So this is a disappointing red flag: Don't use const, it is
>> likely to cause baffling problems and unlikely to help.
>>
>> Unfortunately there's another problem with const that is much
>> more important. I often use constants for conditional settings:
>>
>> if (Debugging)
>> { var DatabaseName = "TestDatabase";
>> var DisplayCount = 5;
>> }
>> else
>> { var DatabaseName = "RealDatabase";
>> var DisplayCount = 15;
>> }
>>
>> The redundant "var"s are a defensive habit, omitting them would
>> be a warning about accesses outside the current scope.
>>
>> If I haven't been warned, and hear that ECMAScript understands
>> "const", I expect that replacing "var" with "const" will change
>> the above from variables into constants. The keyword in no way
>> suggests that it will hide them from view. If they disappear
>> I'll inevitably consider such a completely unrelated side effect
>> a compiler bug.
>>
>> Because of this I'm unhappy about the conclusions of ES3.1 that
>> the visibility scope of "const" should be the enclosing brace-
>> delimited block. Such intricate semantics hidden in words that
>> express something completely unrelated will make the language
>> seem difficult and fraught with hidden surprises.
>>
>> I much prefer what ES4 says in various places on the website:
>> that you express this localness with "let const" and "let function".
>> One block-scope keyword for all block-scope visibility. Consistency
>> and clarity.
>>
>> However this brings me to the unfortunate word "let". Although
>> this word has a precise and clear technical meaning for the
>> initiate, for us in the unwashed masses I can't see that the
>> English word "let" gives even the remotest suggestion of local
>> containment. In fact it suggests very clearly that it's related
>> to the "=" that so often follows:
>>
>> if (x == 5)
>> { let y = 3;
>> }
>>
>> "If x is 5, then let y equal 5." There's an almost inescapably
>> strong suggestion that "let" is a phrasing of the assignment
>> expression, and therefore can't have anything to do with the
>> braces.
>>
>> I think ECMAScript should be easily accessible to us in the
>> unwashed masses. It becomes much more intuitively accessible
>> if it uses a word that strongly implies localness:
>>
>> { if (x == 5)
>> { local y = 3;
>> }
>> local const Debugging = false;
>> for (local Key in List)
>> ++List [Key];
>> }
>>
>> You get plain English sentences that express quite accurately
>> what they're supposed to mean. The programmer won't be the
>> least surprised if a value gets hidden by "local".
>>
>> When people want to write let expressions, if they have to
>> write "local" instead of "let" I don't think this will cause
>> problems. I'm sure the initiate are sophisticated enough that
>> they can adapt to this.
>>
>> Apart from this, I think the scoping arrangements would
>> become significantly simpler and clearer if the language
>> made a very clear, really visible, intuitively accessible
>> distinction between two different types of block, and allowed
>> you to choose either type of block wherever this made sense.
>>
>> My suggestion is to introduce a clearly distinct new and
>> better block. This block should be delimited by {{ and }}
>> if it's at all possible, and I think it is. No keyword,
>> just {{ and }}. This better block would bind vars, consts
>> and functions, just like function scopes do. In fact function
>> scopes and {{ }} would be the same thing, as seen by the
>> programmer.
>>
>> An important advantage with {{ }} is that you can keep
>> everything contained without tedious and error-prone
>> repetition of local (or let) everywhere. And the scoping
>> is prominently visible and clearly structured.
>>
>> It may seem odd that I say that adding yet another scoping
>> construct would make it simpler and easier to learn, but
>> if it's built this way it becomes conceptually clear, free
>> of hidden intricacies, easy to explain. The delimiters
>> {{ and }} suggest that you are walling things in with thicker
>> walls, so that hoisting can't get past. Nicely intuitive.
>> Especially for programmers who put braces at left it becomes
>> very clear indeed. And I'm sure syntax-coloring editors will
>> help making the scoping clear at a glance.
>>
>> The terminology might distinguish between the two types of
>> block by talking about strong and weak blocks, where strong
>> means thick walls that you can't hoist out of, and weak means
>> that the block can only capture things that are marked local
>> (or let), and everything else gets hoisted out.
>>
>> In fact I think a terminology with strong versus weak blocks
>> is clearer than the current terminology, where one type of
>> block is called block and the other is called variable object.
>>
>> I'm sorry if this comes across as a series of complaints. All
>> in all I'm delighted with the many enticing improvements! But
>> listing all the nice things here wouldn't make for interesting
>> reading. And so it may sound much more negative than my overall
>> delighted and enthusiastic feelings.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Es3.x-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es3.x-discuss
>
--
Ingvar von Schoultz
------- (My quirky use of capitals in code comes from my opinion that
reserved and predefined words should all start with lowercase, and
user-defined should all start with uppercase, because this will easily
and elegantly prevent a host of name-collision problems when things
like programming languages are upgraded with new labels.)
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
