Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This is novel weirdness.
In C++/Java/C# etc. you don't see it because the corresponding
declarations create immutable bindings. I agree that it would have
been nice of we could have done that.
Why could we not have?
I asked this up-thread. What was the rationale for let not const binding
via class declarations? I honestly do not remember us considering const.
Did we just "default" into let because of the historical (var) default
binding form being mutable? If so, is it really too late?
Cc'ing Arv in case he can check via Traceur telemetry whether anyone
counts on let-not-const from class.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
