C-style for-loops allow declarations as init statements, but only some
of them. Yet, the others (function and class) are actually
syntactically legal in that position as well, because they are simply
parsed as expressions. Consider:
let x = 0
for (let x = 1; ;) x // 1
for (const x = 1; ;)
Why not accept these as for-loop initializations, so that x actually has
that function and that class as its initial value in the first iteration of
the loop? To me, that's the least surprise. Since this is a position in
which some declarations are accepted, anything there that looks like a
Would this still be legal, in this scheme?
for ((function x(){}); ;) x // 0
for ((class x(){}); ;) x // 0
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
C-style for-loops allow declarations as init statements, but only some
of them. Yet, the others
Mark, could you explain how the condition and iteration statements in the
for loop interact with such an initialization? I agree that banning these
seems like the clearer way to go.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Why not accept these as for-loop
Consider the function and class declarations in these positions to be
equivalent to:
for (let x = function(){}; ...
and
for (let x = class(){}; ...
respectively.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Will Ray wray...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, could you explain how the condition and
Hi John, for those it is unsurprising that they would be allowed, and that
they would be taken as expressions rather than declarations.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:23 AM, John Lenz concavel...@gmail.com wrote:
Would this still be legal, in this scheme?
for ((function x(){}); ;) x // 0
for
On 5 June 2014 17:17, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Why not accept these as for-loop initializations, so that x actually has
that function and that class as its initial value in the first iteration of
the loop? To me, that's the least surprise. Since this is a position in
which some
Over and beyond the breaking change WRT function, I really don’t see the value
in such a restriction. There are many pointless or nonsensial things that can
be written as expressions. In general, we don’t complicate the language to
make such things illegal.
Allen
On Jun 5, 2014, at 7:58
Having this be legal as an expression makes the language more complex from
the programmer's perspective than either
* prohibiting this, by allowing only expression-statements as expressions
here, or
* accepting any declaration in this position.
I would be surprised if the status quo were simpler
On 5 June 2014 18:50, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Over and beyond the breaking change WRT function, I really don’t see the
value in such a restriction. There are many pointless or nonsensial things
that can be written as expressions. In general, we don’t complicate the
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Over and beyond the breaking change WRT function,
I bet a tasty donut that we cannot make this breaking change, so why
should we fool around with anything similar for class?
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
Le 5 juin 2014 à 16:58, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com a écrit :
The one caveat is that for function, that would actually be a breaking
change, but is it likely to be a real world one?
Here is a plausible example:
for (function(){ /* ... */ }(); ; )
Today, the
12 matches
Mail list logo
