Hi Maciej, IIUC, these examples work the same in Allen's proposal as the do
in ES4. If this does break the web, doesn't ES4 have exactly the same
problem?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>
> Const and function declarations within blocks must be uniquely named, such
> a declaration may not over-write a preceding declaration in the same block
> and an attempt to do so is a syntax error. Such declarations, of course,
> shadow any like named declarations in enclosing scopes. Since consts and
> function declarations in blocks are new, this is a new semantics.
>
>
> Although the standard does not allow block-level function declarations, the
> following will parse and give identical results in all four of the major
> browsers (it will alert "2"):
>
> <script>
> function g() {
> if (true) {
> function f() { alert("1"); }
> function f() { alert("2"); }
> }
> f();
> }
> g();
> </script>
>
> This example will interoperably alert "1":
>
> <script>
> function g() {
> if (true) {
> function f() { alert("1"); }
> }
> f();
> }
> g();
> </script>
>
> As I understand it, your proposal would make the first example a syntax
> error and the second a runtime error (unless a global function named f is
> defined).
>
> I know from experience that sites do accidentally depend on the
> intersection of the different IE and Firefox extensions for block-level
> function declarations (and the Safari and Opera attempts to emulate them).
> Do you have evidence that leads you to conclude that your proposed behavior
> is compatible with the Web? I am almost certain it is not.
>
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
