Allen suggested something like this in the September meeting. One issue people
had with it was that it adds another violation of the equivalence between a
statement <stmt> and (function()<stmt>)(), which is a refactoring hazard. Put
differently, if you have some code with "static" declarations in it, you can't
wrap the code in a function body without breaking the code, which makes it
brittle.
Separate from that, I also don't really see how the idea really buys you all
that much. The analogy to C is only so helpful, since C doesn't have nested
functions (and static therefore always lifts to global scope), so mostly it
just reads to me like a rather obscure way of saying "oops, I meant to bind
this over there."
Dave
On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Bga wrote:
> // es3 way
> (function()
> {
> var x = 1;
>
> return function()
> {
> return ++x;
> }
> })();
>
> // current es6/SM1.8 way
> let(x = 1) function()
> {
> return ++x;
> }
>
> // "new" more readable sugar
> function()
> {
> static x = 1; // hello c/c++
>
> return ++x;
> }
>
> Implementation, when compiling source code, just collects 'static' vars
> from scope and wraps current scope to closure scope with collected vars
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
