What I want is both similar to A2 and B2, but it's different in that there
is only 1 scope for the inner variable. The inner variable is just a local
variable, but it's initialized in the hoisting process with the value from
the outer scope. Initially I was thinking only about var scoped variables
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
ES4 had let (x = x) ... forms (where ... was an expression or a body), but
for ES6 we agreed on the temporal dead zone:
Or maybe there's no need for a new keyword :). Not sure I would like an
additional body though.
@Alex Kocharin:
I would't call the functions like time. It was only a very simple example.
Often my functions would be called from outside so I wouldn't be able to
pass the values. Also the main reason I want this is for optimizations, so
as you pointed out, can't use the ugly with.
On Tue, Dec
If you're looking for optimizations, nested closures is not a place where you generally want to be. Create a function out of the scope and call it with all needed variables since function calling is cheap nowadays, and arguments already behave the way you're describing. 25.12.2013, 15:29, "raul
Hi,
I was reading the current spec for Array.from and it felt too
complicated to me. Currently, at a high-level it reads like:
1) if the argument is iterable (@@iterable symbol), create a fresh array
made of the values iterated on with the iterator
2) (step9) if the object is array-like, len =
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 7:33 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was reading the current spec for Array.from and it felt too complicated
to me.
I've been following the specification of Array.from very closely since the
day Dave and I first designed it and it's exactly as
6 matches
Mail list logo
