I'm also fine with 3. On Mon Feb 17 2014 at 10:39:47 AM, Jeremy Martin <jmar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
