Igor Bukanov wrote:
> 2008/10/13 David-Sarah Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> This is slightly more complex than I'd hoped, but I think the guarantee
>> that it is never possible to see uninitialized values of 'const' or 'let'
>> variables is worth it.
>
> What about the functions introduced in the let or const initializers?
> Like the following 2 examples, where the first does access the
> unitilized value but the second does not.
>
> const x = (function() { return x; })()
Invalid because x is not in scope in its own initializer.
> versus
>
> var f = null;
> const x = (f = function() { return f ? x : null;})()
Same here. The same effect, apart from x not being const, can be
achieved by:
var f = null;
let x; x = (f = function() { return f ? x : null;})();
In this case the compiler's analysis is not powerful enough to guarantee
that x is observationally immutable (unsurprisingly, at least because the
condition of the ?: could have been an arbitrary expression), so it won't
let you declare it as const under my proposal. I don't think this is a
problem.
--
David-Sarah Hopwood
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
