Traceur does not give any history on this but I also remember having this
discussion in a f2f meeting. It was all about "js has always been mutable,
lets not change that. If you want immutability you have it with `const f =
class {}`".On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:51 AM Andreas Rossberg <rossb...@google.com> wrote: > On 5 March 2015 at 04:57, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > >> 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? >> > > I seem to remember a (brief) discussion about this, where the main > argument for mutable was that it was "natural" for JS. Allen probably > remembers more of the details. > > It would be totally awesome if we could still correct this. > > /Andreas > > >> >> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
