On Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:40:19 PM UTC-5, Rick Waldron wrote: > > On Sunday, December 30, 2012, Tristan Slominski wrote: > >> RE: "No one should use --harmony today anyway.." >> >> I didn't see block-scoped "let" in es6-shim (pretty sure that's >> impossible to shim without compilation, right?), so although you make a >> good case for some things, availability of "let" and "WeakMap" is pretty >> compelling in --harmony. For the things it can address/shim, es6-shim looks >> like a good solution. > > > Ugh > Again, everything I said _still_ stands: the semantics of let are still > incomplete (temporal dead zone discussion) and there is a serious backward > compatible syntax issue yet to be resolved (let is not reserved and let > destructuring is ambiguous with dereferenced let identifiers). >
+1. Additionally, `let` is not bound correctly in loop block heads with --harmony; in ES6 for (let x; ;) or for (let x in y) will create a fresh per-loop binding. This is a rather serious semantic change, so yet another reason for Rick's warning. Also, just tested this because I had a suspicion it might be the case: the semantics and syntax for `const` are quite borked, with no errors thrown on assignment and no syntax errors upon uninitialized const declarations (i.e. `const x;` instead of `const x = 10;`). -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
