On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Maybe. We tried in 2006-2007 and ran into at least this: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351515 > > where 'yield' was used as a parameter name. I dimly recall 'let' in the wild > but may be misremembering. Perhaps out of paranoia we made both 'let' and > 'yield' require version opt-in. > > The site that used 'yield' has since been updated to avoid using 'yield'. So > we could try again to reserve 'let' unconditionally. Heaven knows I've been > yapping about 'let' as the new 'var' long enough to warn most developers away > from it! > > I discussed this on IRC briefly with Oliver, who seemed game. The only issue > I see is that nightly builds (WebKit, Chrome, Firefox) don't get enough use > to do other than find true positives. It would be good to find such 'let' > usage in the wild, of course, but finding nothing won't give us a green > light, just lack of a red light.
Why unconditionally reserve let? - would it not make more sense to handle this in a contextual fashion if we can do so? – if so, we could introduce 'let' without any backwards compatibility risk, and retain the option to promote it to a keyword at a later date. G.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
