Jon Zeppieri jaz at bu.edu
Wed Aug 20 10:14:35 PDT 2008

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys at intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <Allen.Wirfs-Brock at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> I think Ingvar bring up an interesting point.  While this usage on "let" feels very natural to those of us who have had exposure to functional languages that use it in this manner, it may not be nearly so intuitive to the millions of "script writers" who will be exposed to it. (And, arguably, there are probably still quite a few more former BASIC programmers out there, to whom "let" means assignment, then there are Scheme and ML programmers.)  In addition, while I can't personally speak to it, I can also see where there may be understandability issues for non-native English speakers.
>> I think it is a fine idea to consider usability issues like this as we work towards defining ES-Harmony.
> Perl uses "my".  Short.  Implies scope.
> http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/my.html
>> Allen
> - Sam Ruby

If we really are going by the plain English meaning, I'd say 'my'
implies possession, not scope, and is more appropriate to describe the
relation between an instance variable and its object than that of a
lexical variable and its scope.

'local' would be fine, except that ES already has a kind of local
variable.  'var'-declared variables are function-local.  If you search
for "javascript local variable," you will get plenty of results, and
all of them will be about 'var.'

Allen's BASIC point is a good one, and all I can muster in response is
a (mostly) tongue-in-cheek reply: BASIC programmers who go on to learn
other languages first find it necessary to unlearn BASIC.


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list