On Oct 11, 2008, at 7:25 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> It is correct to say, though, that:
>
> function foo() {
>...
>{ var bar = baz; }
>...
> }
>
> is equivalent to
>
> function foo() {
>let bar = undefined;
>...
>{ bar = baz; }
>...
> }
>
> That is, 'var' need
Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2008, at 11:58 AM, P T Withington wrote:
>
>> ? If so, perhaps you can see how I might imagine that:
>>
>> function foo () {{
>> var bar = ...;
>> }}
>>
>> might be sugar for:
>>
>> function foo () {
>> let bar = ...;
>> }
>
> Nope, not compatible
On Oct 10, 2008, at 11:58 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> ? If so, perhaps you can see how I might imagine that:
>
> function foo () {{
> var bar = ...;
> }}
>
> might be sugar for:
>
> function foo () {
> let bar = ...;
> }
Nope, not compatible and not what I meant.
Just the functi
On 2008-10-10, at 11:55EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2008, at 5:44 AM, P T Withington wrote:
>
>> On 2008-10-10, at 02:29EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>>> An agreement from TC39 this past spring was that function
>>> definitions
>>> directly nested in blocks, not specified by ES3, defined
P T Withington wrote:
> On 2008-10-10, at 02:29EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> An agreement from TC39 this past sprint was that function definitions
>> directly nested in blocks, not specified by ES3, defined block-local
>> (let) bindings.
>
> Holy smokes. Does that mean we are all going to be wri
On Oct 10, 2008, at 5:44 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> On 2008-10-10, at 02:29EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> An agreement from TC39 this past spring was that function definitions
>> directly nested in blocks, not specified by ES3, defined block-local
>> (let) bindings.
>
> Holy smokes. Does that mea
> On 2008-10-10, at 02:29EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> An agreement from TC39 this past sprint was that function definitions
>> directly nested in blocks, not specified by ES3, defined block-local
>> (let) bindings.
2008/10/10 P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Holy smokes. Does that mean we are
On 2008-10-10, at 02:29EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
> An agreement from TC39 this past sprint was that function definitions
> directly nested in blocks, not specified by ES3, defined block-local
> (let) bindings.
Holy smokes. Does that mean we are all going to be writing
function ... () {{
8 matches
Mail list logo
