Is it worth changing the name of a statement/expression/definition who's
labeled intuitiveness is debatable and which has been in use since
JavaScript 1.7? If compatibility is one of the goals wouldn't this
create more trouble than its worth?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">The
> keyword "let" breaks the very valuable JavaScript tradition
> of using intuitively meaningful keywords.
>
> JavaScript uses the word to say "local", but its normal English
> meaning is "allow".
>
> All other JavaScript keywords help you understand the program
> text. Most of them suggest a translation from statement to
> plain English that conveys the meaning reasonably well. The
> totally off-the-mark meaning of "let" makes it strange and
> foreign.
>
> You'd get nicely intuitive plain English if "local" were used
> instead:
>
> if (x == 5)
> { local y = 3;
> z = x * y;
> }
> for (local Key in List)
> ++List [Key];
>
> Of course one can easily guess intuitively at the historical
> accidents that have led people to use "let" when they really
> mean to say "local". But that's no reason for burdening
> JavaScript with such an off-the-mark word, in my opinion.
>
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
