You'll have better success with "node --harmony --use-strict". On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:37 AM UTC-6, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
