On Oct 13, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: >> >>> Yes, and binding a fresh induction variable on every iteration makes >>> sense for a 'for-each' loop (as in the bug report you cited), where >>> the user is not in charge of updating the induction variable by >>> means >>> of explicit assignment. In a plain 'for' loop, however, it *is* >>> magic >>> if an assignment results in a fresh binding. >> >> Why is the assignment operator relevant? The question is the binding >> scope of i in >> >> for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) ... > > > How is scope the issue? As far as I know, we don't disagree about > scope.
Probably we're at cross purposes (I often am ;-) because of the primal sin in ECMAScript of specifying scope via object, and closure via scope chain capture. > The assignment I'm referring to, in this example, is the 'i++' part. > Mark is proposing that this does not mean "increment i by one," but > rather "rebind i with the value of i+1" -- which is completely > different and not what the user wrote. Gotcha -- I agree, this is a problem for a proposal that tries to desugar for(;;). Curses. The user expectation with a closure in a for(var i = 0; i < N; i++) loop, that each closure captures i's current value, remains, completely parallel to the for (i in o) ... case. Any attempt to solve it via let instead of var -- other than by making multiple (blech) scope (barf) objects, one per iteration -- must respecify how closures work. Hmm. /be _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
