Comment #7 on issue 3926 by [email protected]: Let/const in CaseBlock
https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3926
It doesn't seem so useful to support this any more than we do right now,
since I'd recommend that programmers uJust because Chakra implemented it
and it's in the spec doesn't mean that it should stay that way--see what we
just accomplished at TC39 with strict mode function parameters.
I guess this one isn't actually much of a deviation or a special case from
what we already have to support for let, so it's not bad to implement it.
The only difference is that this is the first case that I can think of
where you really couldn't statically determine whether the 'let' is reached
or not, given that 'let' doesn't escape eval, and all other control flow
constructs either introduce a new scope or don't introduce lexical
bindings. I don't think this'll have an impact on the performance of our
current implementation, but it might restrict our flexibility a little bit
in the future.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
