Good evening,
I apologize if this issue was discussed already, I've been unable to
find an answer after a few hours of digging and Googling.
I was watching some old SICP videos and translating some of the code
into JavaScript to see how it compared to Scheme and came across a
couple of errors
/function foo () { return 'global'; }
class bar {
function foo () { return 'local'; }
function zot () {
// How can I call the global foo from here?
without (this) { foo(); }
}
}/
You could use window[foo](); or whatever the global object is named in
the environment
So let me see if I understand this argument correctly.
{{...}} means the same thing as a generic let statement and {{...}} is
optional
Because it's optional, the language should contain both let and {{...}}?
I don't see how this doesn't add a level of complexity.Instead of just
remembering
Jon Zeppieri wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Michael Haufe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So let me see if I understand this argument correctly.
I generally agree with what you've written here -- just a couple of
comments...
If I want the benefits of this blocking, does
The entire concept of {{ ... }} irks me, and probably quite a few
others. This would add a level of syntax complexity and confusion
non-intuitive to most developers.
Object literal {{ foo : bar}}?
function(){{...}} ?
if(){{
...
}}
else {{
...
}}
switch()? with()? Imagine JSON with these
