On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: > Brendan Eich wrote: >> True enough -- but even without normalization, multiple equivalent >> (at >> runtime, depending on flow) annotations could be allowed. Should >> they be? > > No. Just because the type matched the last five times you evaluated > it doesn't mean that it will match the next time. Also, with > multiple lets it's too easy to mistake the case of shadowing (when > multiple let declarations are in nested blocks) with sharing (when > they are far apart in the same block). You might refactor: ...
Same could happen for function definitions nested in blocks, refactored to erase the blocks. It would be an error to redefine a function with the same name and any type annotations (assuming we have annotated functions -- function types), I take it? If the answer is no, then I agree. The consequences of runtime types have not been something I've thought a lot about, but it seems like they make all binding forms like const: you cannot redefine a name in the same block with any binding form. /be _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
