Hm, that's an interesting point: *all* declaration forms are sensitive to being
wrapped in a function, e.g.:
|(function() { var x })()| != |var x|
That pretty much nixes that critique!
Dave
On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> How is your example any different from if you had said:
> const foo=1;
>
> In both cases, wrapping the declaration with a function changes its scope??
>
> Allen
>
> -----Original Message----- From: David Herman
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:24 AM
> To: Dmitry A. Soshnikov
> Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: `static` keyword from C/C++ as own closured var declaration
>
>> Can you give a small example (it's just interesting) -- to see the issue?
>
> Sure thing. Say you're writing some code with a constant value, and somewhere
> inside the code you use `static':
>
> var METERS_PER_SQUARE_KILOJOULE = 17.4;
> ...
> static foo = 1;
> ...
> f(foo, METERS_PER_SQUARE_KILOJOULE);
>
> Now you decide you want to parameterize over the constant, instead of a fixed
> constant:
>
> function(metersPerSquareKiloJoule) {
> ...
> static foo = 1;
> ...
> f(foo, metersPerSquareKiloJoule);
> }
>
> This change accidentally alters the scope of `foo'.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
