Yes, see the thread starting at https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-December/027419.html
if you haven't. The SpiderMonkey implementation was "first", for what it's worth -- from 1997. ES3 did not specify any function in block production, of course. The intersection with IE semantics is such that it's safe to use the function's name only later in the same block, but for some "then" blocks where the condition happens to be always true, and a few others where there's an outer definition of the same name -- the "if" condition is object-detecting using typeof foo == "undefined", e.g., for wanted function foo, then the function's name could be used after the "then" block without error. We may be able to evangelize, since as you discovered, people have noticed the lack of interop already (that blog post is from 2011), so there may not be too many sites depending on intersection semantics of existing engines but not ES6 block-scoped (but not hoisted -- use after declaration) semantics. /be Claude Pache wrote: > I've just discovered that someone is fallen in the following pit: > Change of the semantic of function declarations in Firefox when included in > block (spoiler: hoisting issue). > (Not standard ES for sure, but definitely JS.) > Enjoy: http://statichtml.com/2011/spidermonkey-function-hoisting.html > > ―Claude > > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
