Michael Haufe TNO at TheNewObjective.com
Wed Aug 20 16:22:31 PDT 2008

Is it worth changing the name of a statement/expression/definition who's 
labeled intuitiveness is debatable and  which  has been in use since 
JavaScript 1.7? If compatibility is one of the goals wouldn't this 
create more trouble than its worth?

Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">The 
> keyword "let" breaks the very valuable JavaScript tradition
> of using intuitively meaningful keywords.
> JavaScript uses the word to say "local", but its normal English
> meaning is "allow".
> All other JavaScript keywords help you understand the program
> text. Most of them suggest a translation from statement to
> plain English that conveys the meaning reasonably well. The
> totally off-the-mark meaning of "let" makes it strange and
> foreign.
> You'd get nicely intuitive plain English if "local" were used
> instead:
>     if (x == 5)
>     {   local y = 3;
>         z = x * y;
>     }
>     for (local Key in List)
>         ++List [Key];
> Of course one can easily guess intuitively at the historical
> accidents that have led people to use "let" when they really
> mean to say "local". But that's no reason for burdening
> JavaScript with such an off-the-mark word, in my opinion.

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list