On Aug 21, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Peter Hall wrote:
> I think the question being posed by the anti-let camp really is, given
> that on the surface both var and let do the same thing (declare a
> variable), does the choice 'let' help describe how those keywords
> differ in behaviour?
Does var? Some find for strange (not if you think of Math, as David-
Sarah pointed out for let: for all ...).
No word is going to spell out what's going on by itself. Text does
not interpret itself. 'local' is not self-describing, and it can be a
misnomer.
The tradition behind let is strong, and it has brevity on its side
too as Richard Cornford pointed out.
But I'm dismayed that we're still coloring the shed. The real issues
are the binding semantics: hoisting, forward refs, etc. Jon Z made a
bold proposal there.
/be
>
> Peter
>
> On 21 Aug 2008, at 18:21, David-Sarah Hopwood
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:
>
>> Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
>>> The problem with "let" isn't inexactness or incompleteness, it's
>>> that it's completely off the mark and unrelated, when read as
>>> plain English.
>>
>> It's not supposed to be related to plain English; it's supposed
>> to be related to mathematical English usage ("let x be ...").
>>
>> --
>> David-Sarah Hopwood
>> _______________________________________________
>> Es-discuss mailing list
>> Es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Es-discuss mailing list
> Es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
