Happy to concede to #3 on my end. Just wanted to be clear that it seems to be optimizing for future happiness vs. least surprising behavior (which isn't a bad thing).
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jorge Chamorro <jo...@jorgechamorro.com>wrote: > On 17/02/2014, at 13:42, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > > On 15 February 2014 06:10, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >>> > >>> Another consideration in the back of my mind is that there may be > useful > >>> to implementors to knowing that let/const/class declaration are never > >>> dynamically added to a non-global environment. > >> > >> +lots, this should be front of mind. > >> > >> In a block, we want the bindings local to that block to be statically > >> analyzable. We want no non-local mode effects. So, #3 still wins. > > > > Strongly seconded. > > And even thirded. > > -- > ( Jorge )(); > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Jeremy Martin 661.312.3853 http://devsmash.com @jmar777
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
